Medical errors-what and when: what do patients want to know?

An Overview of Medical Electronic Hardware Security and Emerging Solutions

Electronic healthcare technology is widespread around the world and creates massive potential to improve clinical outcomes and transform care delivery. However, there are increasing concerns with respect to the cyber vulnerabilities of medical tools, malicious medical errors, and security attacks on healthcare data and devices. Increased connectivity to existing computer networks has exposed the medical devices/systems and their communicating data to new cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Adversaries leverage the state-of-the-art technologies, in particular artificial intelligence and computer vision-based techniques, in order to launch stronger and more detrimental attacks on the medical targets. The medical domain is an attractive area for cybercrimes for two fundamental reasons: (a) it is rich resource of valuable and sensitive data; and (b) its protection and defensive mechanisms are weak and ineffective. The attacks aim to steal health information from the patients, manipulate the medical information and queries, maliciously change the medical diagnosis, decisions, and prescriptions, etc. A successful attack in the medical domain causes serious damage to the patient’s health and even death. Therefore, cybersecurity is critical to patient safety and every aspect of the medical domain, while it has not been studied sufficiently. To tackle this problem, new human- and computer-based countermeasures are researched and proposed for medical attacks using the most effective software and hardware technologies, such as artificial intelligence and computer vision. This review provides insights to the novel and existing solutions in the literature that mitigate cyber risks, errors, damage, and threats in the medical domain. We have performed a scoping review analyzing the four major elements in this area (in order from a medical perspective): (1) medical errors; (2) security weaknesses of medical devices at software- and hardware-level; (3) artificial intelligence and/or computer vision in medical applications; and (4) cyber attacks and defenses in the medical domain. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence and computer vision are key topics in this review and their usage in all these four elements are discussed. The review outcome delivers the solutions through building and evaluating the connections among these elements in order to serve as a beneficial guideline for medical electronic hardware security.

American Pharmacists Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Medication Error Disclosure

Background

Patient safety places emphasis on full disclosure, transparency, and a commitment to prevent future errors. Studies addressing the disclosure of medication errors in the profession of pharmacy are lacking.

Objective

This study examined attitudes and behaviors of American pharmacists regarding medication errors and their disclosure to patients.

Methods

A 4-page questionnaire was mailed to a nationwide random sample of 2,002 pharmacists. It included items to assess pharmacists' knowledge of and experience with medication errors and their disclosure. The data was collected over three months and analyzed using IBM SPSS 22.0. The study received IRB exempt status.

Results

The response rate was 12.6% (n = 252). The average pharmacist respondent was a 57-year old (+ 12.1 years), Caucasian (79.8%), male (59.9%), with a BS Pharmacy degree (73.8%), and licensed for 33 years (+ 12.8 years). Most respondents were employed in a hospital (26.4%) or community (31.0 %) setting and held staff (30.9%), manager (29.1%), or clinical staff (20.6%) positions. Respondents reported having been involved in a medication error as a patient (31.0%) or a pharmacist (95.5%). The data suggest that full disclosure is not being achieved by pharmacists. Significant differences in some attitudes and behaviors were uncovered when community pharmacists were compared to their hospital counterparts.

Conclusion

There is room for improvement regarding proper medication error disclosure by pharmacists.

Disclosure of medical errors: physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) in an oncology center

Background

Between the need for transparency in healthcare, widely promoted by patient’s safety campaigns, and the fear of negative consequences and malpractice threats, physicians face challenging decisions on whether or not disclosing medical errors to patients and families is a valid option.

We aim to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of physicians in our center regarding medical error disclosure.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional self-administered questionnaire study. The questionnaire was piloted and no major modifications were made.

A day-long training workshop consisting of didactic lectures, short and long case scenarios with role playing and feedback from the instructors, were conducted. Physicians who attended these training workshops were invited to complete the questionnaire at the end of the training, and physicians who did not attend any training were sent a copy of the questionnaire to their offices to complete. To assure anonymity and transparency of responses, we did not query names or departments.

Descriptive statistics were used to present demographics and KAP. The differences between response\s of physicians who received the training and those who did not were analyzed with t-test and descriptive statistics. The 0.05 level of significance was used as a cutoff measure for statistical significance.

Results

Eighty-eight physicians completed the questionnaire (55 attended training (62.50%), and 33 did not (37.50%)). Sixty Five percent of physicians were males and the mean number of years of experience was 16.5 years. Eighty-Seven percent (n = 73) of physicians were more likely to report major harm, compared to minor harm or no harm. Physicians who attended the workshop were more knowledgeable of articles of Jordan’s Law on Medical and Health Liability (66.7% vs 45.5%, p-value = 0.017) and the Law was more likely to affect their decision on error disclosure (61.8% vs 36.4%, p-value = 0.024).

Conclusion

Formal training workshops on disclosing medical errors have the power to positively influence physicians’ KAP toward disclosing medical errors to patients and possibly promoting a culture of transparency in the health care system.

The Patient Perspective on Errors in Cancer Care: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore medical oncology outpatients' perceived experiences of errors in their cancer care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted. English-speaking medical oncology outpatients aged 18 years or older were recruited from 9 Australian cancer treatment centers. Participants completed 2 paper-and-pencil questionnaires: an initial survey on demographic, disease and treatment characteristics upon recruitment; and a second survey on their experiences of errors in cancer care 1 month later.

RESULTS

A total of 1818 patients (80%) consented to participate, and of these, 1136 (62%) completed both surveys. One hundred forty-eight participants (13%) perceived that an error had been made in their care, of which one third (n = 46) reported that the error was associated with severe harm. Of those who perceived an error had been made, less than half reported that they had received an explanation for the error (n = 65, 45%) and only one third reported receiving an apology (n = 50, 35%) or being told that steps had been taken to prevent the error from reoccurring (n = 52, 36%). Patients with university or vocational level education (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6 [1.09-2.45], P = 0.0174) and those who received radiotherapy (OR = 1.72 [1.16-2.57]; P = 0.0076) or "other" treatments (OR = 3.23 [1.08-9.63]; P = 0.0356) were significantly more likely to report an error in care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant scope to improve communication with patients and appropriate responses by the healthcare system after a perceived error in cancer care.

Preparing Emergency Medicine Residents to Disclose Medical Error Using Standardized Patients

Introduction

Emergency Medicine (EM) is a unique clinical learning environment. The American College of Graduate Medical Education Clinical Learning Environment Review Pathways to Excellence calls for “hands-on training” of disclosure of medical error (DME) during residency. Training and practicing key elements of DME using standardized patients (SP) may enhance preparedness among EM residents in performing this crucial skill in a clinical setting.

Methods

This training was developed to improve resident preparedness in DME in the clinical setting. Objectives included the following: the residents will be able to define a medical error; discuss ethical and professional standards of DME; recognize common barriers to DME; describe key elements in effective DME to patients and families; and apply key elements during a SP encounter. The four-hour course included didactic and experiential learning methods, and was created collaboratively by core EM faculty and subject matter experts in conflict resolution and healthcare simulation. Educational media included lecture, video exemplars of DME communication with discussion, small group case-study discussion, and SP encounters. We administered a survey assessing for preparedness in DME pre-and post-training. A critical action checklist was administered to assess individual performance of key elements of DME during the evaluated SP case. A total of 15 postgraduate-year 1 and 2 EM residents completed the training.

Results

After the course, residents reported increased comfort with and preparedness in performing several key elements in DME. They were able to demonstrate these elements in a simulated setting using SP. Residents valued the training, rating the didactic, SP sessions, and overall educational experience very high.

Conclusion

Experiential learning using SP is effective in improving resident knowledge of and preparedness in performing medical error disclosure. This educational module can be adapted to other clinical learning environments through creation of specialty-specific scenarios.

A Checklist to Help Faculty Assess ACGME Milestones in a Video-Recorded OSCE

BACKGROUND

Faculty members need to assess resident performance using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones.

OBJECTIVE

In this randomized study we used an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) around the disclosure of an adverse event to determine whether use of a checklist improved the quality of milestone assessments by faculty.

METHODS

In 2013, a total of 20 anesthesiology faculty members from 3 institutions were randomized to 2 groups to assess 5 videos of trainees demonstrating advancing levels of competency on the OSCE. One group used milestones alone, and the other used milestones plus a 13-item checklist with behavioral anchors based on ideal performance. We classified faculty ratings as either correct or incorrect with regard to the competency level demonstrated in each video, and then used logistic regression analysis to assess the effect of checklist use on the odds of correct classification.

RESULTS

Thirteen of 20 faculty members rated assessing performance using milestones alone as difficult or very difficult. Checklist use was associated with significantly greater odds of correct classification at entry level (odds ratio [OR] = 9.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0-21.2) and at junior level (OR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.7) performance. For performance at other competency levels checklist use did not affect the odds of correct classification.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of anesthesiology faculty members reported difficulty with assessing a videotaped OSCE of error disclosure using milestones as primary assessment tools. Use of the checklist assisted in correct assessments at the entry and junior levels.

Complications: acknowledging, managing, and coping with human error

Errors are inherent in medicine due to the imperfectness of human nature. Health care providers may have a difficult time accepting their fallibility, acknowledging mistakes, and disclosing errors. Fear of litigation, shame, blame, and concern about reputation are just some of the barriers preventing physicians from being more candid with their patients, despite the supporting body of evidence that patients cite poor communication and lack of transparency as primary drivers to file a lawsuit in the wake of a medical complication. Proper error disclosure includes a timely explanation of what happened, who was involved, why the error occurred, and how it will be prevented in the future. Medical mistakes afford the opportunity for individuals and institutions to be candid about their weaknesses while improving patient care processes. When a physician takes the Hippocratic Oath they take on a tremendous sense of responsibility for the care of their patients, and often bear the burden of their mistakes in isolation. Physicians may struggle with guilt, shame, and a crisis of confidence, which may thwart efforts to identify areas for improvement that can lead to meaningful change. Coping strategies for providers include discussing the event with others, seeking professional counseling, and implementing quality improvement projects. Physicians and health care organizations need to find adaptive ways to deal with complications that will benefit patients, providers, and their institutions.

Frequency, Expected Effects, Obstacles, and Facilitators of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review

Objectives

We performed a systematic review to assess and aggregate the available evidence on the frequency, expected effects, obstacles, and facilitators of disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI).

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this systematic review and searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for English articles published between 1990 and 2014. Two authors independently conducted the title screening and abstract review. Ninety-nine articles were selected for full-text reviews. One author extracted the data and another verified them.

Results

There was considerable variation in the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. The main expected effects of DPSI were decreased intention of the general public to file medical lawsuits and punish medical professionals, increased credibility of medical professionals, increased intention of patients to revisit and recommend physicians or hospitals, higher ratings of quality of care, and alleviation of feelings of guilt among medical professionals. The obstacles to DPSI were fear of medical lawsuits and punishment, fear of a damaged professional reputation among colleagues and patients, diminished patient trust, the complexity of the situation, and the absence of a patient safety culture. However, the factors facilitating DPSI included the creation of a safe environment for reporting patient safety incidents, as well as guidelines and education for DPSI.

Conclusions

The reported frequency of the experience of the general public with DPSI was somewhat lower than the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. Although we identified various expected effects of DPSI, more empirical evidence from real cases is required.

Medical errors; causes, consequences, emotional response and resulting behavioral change

Objective:

To determine the causes of medical errors, the emotional and behavioral response of pediatric medicine residents to their medical errors and to determine their behavior change affecting their future training.

Methods:

One hundred thirty postgraduate residents were included in the study. Residents were asked to complete questionnaire about their errors and responses to their errors in three domains: emotional response, learning behavior and disclosure of the error. The names of the participants were kept confidential. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 20.

Results:

A total of 130 residents were included. Majority 128(98.5%) of these described some form of error. Serious errors that occurred were 24(19%), 63(48%) minor, 24(19%) near misses,2(2%) never encountered an error and 17(12%) did not mention type of error but mentioned causes and consequences. Only 73(57%) residents disclosed medical errors to their senior physician but disclosure to patient’s family was negligible 15(11%). Fatigue due to long duty hours 85(65%), inadequate experience 66(52%), inadequate supervision 58(48%) and complex case 58(45%) were common causes of medical errors. Negative emotions were common and were significantly associated with lack of knowledge (p=0.001), missing warning signs (p=<0.001), not seeking advice (p=0.003) and procedural complications (p=0.001). Medical errors had significant impact on resident’s behavior; 119(93%) residents became more careful, increased advice seeking from seniors 109(86%) and 109(86%) started paying more attention to details. Intrinsic causes of errors were significantly associated with increased information seeking behavior and vigilance (p=0.003) and (p=0.01) respectively.

Conclusion:

Medical errors committed by residents have inadequate disclosure to senior physicians and result in negative emotions but there was positive change in their behavior, which resulted in improvement in their future training and patient care.

Disclosure of Medical Errors in Oman: Public preferences and perceptions of current practice

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide insight into the preferences for and perceptions of medical error disclosure (MED) by members of the public in Oman.

METHODS

Between January and June 2012, an online survey was used to collect responses from 205 members of the public across five governorates of Oman.

RESULTS

A disclosure gap was revealed between the respondents' preferences for MED and perceived current MED practices in Oman. This disclosure gap extended to both the type of error and the person most likely to disclose the error. Errors resulting in patient harm were found to have a strong influence on individuals' perceived quality of care. In addition, full disclosure was found to be highly valued by respondents and able to mitigate for a perceived lack of care in cases where medical errors led to damages.

CONCLUSION

The perceived disclosure gap between respondents' MED preferences and perceptions of current MED practices in Oman needs to be addressed in order to increase public confidence in the national health care system.

What are Patients' Concerns about Medical Errors in an Emergency Department?

OBJECTIVES

Concerns about medical errors have recently increased. An understanding of how patients conceptualise medical error would help health care providers to allay safety concerns and increase patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' worries about medical errors and their relationship with patient characteristics and satisfaction.

METHODS

This descriptive cross-sectional study was done in the Emergency Department (ED) of a university hospital over a one week period in October 2008. A questionnaire was used to assess patients' worries about medical errors and their satisfaction levels both at an initial interview and by telephone 7 days after discharge. Data were gathered and analysed by χ2, t-tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 638 patients interviewed, 61.6% declared their satisfaction rate as good to excellent; (93 [14.6%] as poor; 152 [23.8%] as fair; 296 [46.4%] as good; 97 [15.2%] as excellent). A total of 48.3% of patients (44.5-52%, with confidence interval 95%) were concerned about the occurrence of at least one medical error. There was a clear relationship between the general satisfaction rate and having at least one concern about a medical error (Chi-square, P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that many patients were concerned about medical errors during their emergency care. Due to the stressful situation in EDs, patients' safety and satisfaction could be improved by a better understanding of patient concerns, education of ED staff and an improvement in the patient-doctor relationship.

Which medical error to disclose to patients and by whom? Public preference and perceptions of norm and current practice

Background

Disclosure of near miss medical error (ME) and who should disclose ME to patients continue to be controversial. Further, available recommendations on disclosure of ME have emerged largely in Western culture; their suitability to Islamic/Arabic culture is not known.

Methods

We surveyed 902 individuals attending the outpatient's clinics of a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Personal preference and perceptions of norm and current practice regarding which ME to be disclosed (5 options: don't disclose; disclose if associated with major, moderate, or minor harm; disclose near miss) and by whom (6 options: any employee, any physician, at-fault-physician, manager of at-fault-physician, medical director, or chief executive director) were explored.

Results

Mean (SD) age of respondents was 33.9 (10) year, 47% were males, 90% Saudis, 37% patients, 49% employed, and 61% with college or higher education. The percentage (95% confidence interval) of respondents who preferred to be informed of harmful ME, of near miss ME, or by at-fault physician were 60.0% (56.8 to 63.2), 35.5% (32.4 to 38.6), and 59.7% (56.5 to 63.0), respectively. Respectively, 68.2% (65.2 to 71.2) and 17.3% (14.7 to 19.8) believed that as currently practiced, harmful ME and near miss ME are disclosed, and 34.0% (30.7 to 37.4) that ME are disclosed by at-fault-physician. Distributions of perception of norm and preference were similar but significantly different from the distribution of perception of current practice (P < 0.001). In a forward stepwise regression analysis, older age, female gender, and being healthy predicted preference of disclosure of near miss ME, while younger age and male gender predicted preference of no-disclosure of ME. Female gender also predicted preferring disclosure by the at-fault-physician.

Conclusions

We conclude that: 1) there is a considerable diversity in preferences and perceptions of norm and current practice among respondents regarding which ME to be disclosed and by whom, 2) Distributions of preference and perception of norm were similar but significantly different from the distribution of perception of current practice, 3) most respondents preferred to be informed of ME and by at-fault physician, and 4) one third of respondents preferred to be informed of near-miss ME, with a higher percentage among females, older, and healthy individuals.

Disclosure of patient safety incidents: a comprehensive review

PURPOSE

Adverse events are increasingly recognized as a source of harm to patients. When such harm occurs, problems arise in communicating the situation to patients and their families. We reviewed the literature on disclosure across individual and international boundaries, including patients', healthcare professionals' and other stakeholders' perspectives in order to ascertain how the needs of all groups could be better reconciled.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of the literature was carried out using the search terms 'patient safety', 'medical error', 'communication', 'clinicians', 'healthcare professionals' and 'disclosure'. All articles relating to either patients' or healthcare professionals' experiences or attitudes toward disclosure were included.

RESULTS

Both patients and healthcare professionals support the disclosure of adverse events to patients and their families. Patients have specific requirements including frank and timely disclosure, an apology where appropriate and assurances about their future care. However, research suggests that there is a gap between ideal disclosure practice and reality. Although healthcare is delivered by multidisciplinary teams, much of the research that has been conducted has focused on physicians' experiences. Research indicates that other healthcare professionals also have a role to play in the disclosure process and this should be reflected in disclosure policies.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive review, which takes account of the perspectives of the patient and members of the care team across multiple jurisdictions, suggests that disclosure practice can be improved by strengthening policy and supporting healthcare professionals in disclosing adverse events. Increased openness and honesty following adverse events can improve provider-patient relationships.

The many faces of error disclosure: a common set of elements and a definition

BACKGROUND

Patients want to know when errors happen in their care. Professional associations, ethicists, and patient safety experts endorse disclosure of medical error to patients. Surveys of physicians show that they believe harmful errors should be disclosed to patients, yet errors are often not disclosed.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the discrepancy between patients' expectations and physicians' behavior concerning error disclosure.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted focus groups to determine what constitutes disclosure of medical error. Twenty focus groups, 4 at each of 5 academic centers, included 204 hospital administrators, physicians, residents, and nurses.

APPROACH

Qualitative analysis of the focus group transcripts with attention to examples of error disclosure by clinicians and hospital administrators.

RESULTS

Clinicians and administrators considered various forms of communication about errors to be error disclosure. Six elements of disclosure identified from focus group transcripts characterized disclosures ranging from Full disclosure (including admission of a mistake, discussion of the error, and a link from the error to harm) to Partial disclosures, which included deferral, misleading statements, and inadequate information to "connect the dots." Descriptions involving nondisclosure of harmful errors were uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Error disclosure may mean different things to clinicians than it does to patients. The various forms of communication deemed error disclosure by clinicians may explain the discrepancy between error disclosure beliefs and behaviors. We suggest a definition of error disclosure to inform practical policies and interventions.

Disclosure of medical errors: what factors influence how patients respond?

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of medical errors is encouraged, but research on how patients respond to specific practices is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to determine whether full disclosure, an existing positive physician-patient relationship, an offer to waive associated costs, and the severity of the clinical outcome influenced patients' responses to medical errors.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred and seven health plan members participated in a randomized experiment in which they viewed video depictions of medical error and disclosure.

DESIGN

Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental condition. Conditions varied in type of medication error, level of disclosure, reference to a prior positive physician-patient relationship, an offer to waive costs, and clinical outcome.

MEASURES

Self-reported likelihood of changing physicians and of seeking legal advice; satisfaction, trust, and emotional response.

RESULTS

Nondisclosure increased the likelihood of changing physicians, and reduced satisfaction and trust in both error conditions. Nondisclosure increased the likelihood of seeking legal advice and was associated with a more negative emotional response in the missed allergy error condition, but did not have a statistically significant impact on seeking legal advice or emotional response in the monitoring error condition. Neither the existence of a positive relationship nor an offer to waive costs had a statistically significant impact.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that full disclosure is likely to have a positive effect or no effect on how patients respond to medical errors. The clinical outcome also influences patients' responses. The impact of an existing positive physician-patient relationship, or of waiving costs associated with the error remains uncertain.