Disclosure Of Medical Injury To Patients: An Improbable Risk Management Strategy

The Impacts of Disclosure and a Proactive Compensation Offer on Chinese Patients' Actions After Medical Errors

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to obtain evidence of the impacts of error disclosure and the impacts of a proactive compensation offer on Chinese patients' actions after medical errors.

METHODS

A total of 915 responses were collected from a questionnaire survey. Two fictitious cases (entailed moderate and severe harm) that involved error disclosure were described. One of 5 disclosure and compensation types was randomly provided to each participant. The 5 types were combinations of 3 disclosure types (no disclosure, partial disclosure, and full disclosure) and 2 proactive compensation offer categories (no offer and an offer), with the exception of no disclosure but a proactive compensation offer. The respondents were asked about their willingness to take actions if they were the affected patient.

RESULTS

The generalized ordinal logit regression model showed that error disclosure did not increase the likelihood of the patients taking action, such as changing physicians, complaining, or filing lawsuits. A proactive compensation offer decreased the patients' willingness to file lawsuits but had no significant influence on the other action choices. In addition, the patients' actions were affected by other factors, such as the severity of the error, age, sex, education level, being religious, prior error experience, and health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that "disclosure and compensation" programs are developed in China. To ensure their implementation, it is recommended that appropriate training is provided and that the disclosure culture in health care organizations is improved. Furthermore, laws or regulations are required that govern error disclosure and provide support for health care professionals and organizations.

Honesty and Transparency, Indispensable to the Clinical Mission-Part II: How Communication and Resolution Programs Promote Patient Safety and Trust

When patients are harmed by health care, concerns fan out in all directions. Patients and families confront a sea of uncertainty, contending with injuries that drain them physically, emotionally, and financially. Health care professionals experience a powerful mix of emotions, but are seldom afforded the time to process what happened or the resources to relieve suffering and prevent harm. Honesty, transparency, and empathy are indispensable to a comprehensive approach that prioritizes patient and family-centered response to unintended harm, clinical improvement, and redemptive peer review. Part 2 introduces the second of three pillars for advancing the clinical mission: communication and transparency.

"First Do No Harm". No-Fault Compensation Program for COVID-19 Vaccines as Feasibility and Wisdom of a Policy Instrument to Mitigate Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccines are so far proven to be safe, although related adverse events cannot be excluded. The urgency for COVID-19 vaccines determined a dilution of the general expectations of safety and efficacy of vaccination (from safe and effective to safe and effective enough). In many countries, a no-fault program was established to compensate individuals who experienced serious vaccine-related injuries. The impressive number of administrations worldwide and the legal indemnity afforded to manufacturers of approved vaccines that cannot be pursued for compensation fed the debate about the availability of a compensation model for COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries. Several European countries have long introduced a system, Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs, to compensate people who suffer physical harm because of vaccination. In Europe, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly recommended for the general population and in many states is declared mandatory for healthcare workers. In 1992, Italy edited Law no. 210 providing legal protection for individuals who reported injuries after mandatory and recommended vaccinations as a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system. Despite its recommended nature, COVID-19 vaccination is excluded from the no-fault model in several European states, and the Italian government is called to provide clear and firm instructions for the management of the many requests for compensation. The authors provide an overview of the existing compensation models in Europe and analyse available legislative proposals.

Disclosure of adverse events: a data linkage study reporting patient experiences among Australian adults aged ≥45 years

Objective Since Australia initiated national open disclosure standards in 2002, open disclosure policies have been adopted in all Australian states and territories. Yet, research evidence regarding their adoption is limited. The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency with which patients who report an adverse event had information disclosed to them about the incident, including whether they participated in a formal open disclosure process, their experiences of the process and the extent to which these align with the current New South Wales (NSW) policy. Methods A cross-sectional survey about patient experiences of disclosure associated with an adverse event was administered to a random sample of 20000 participants in the 45 and Up Study who were hospitalised in NSW, Australia, between January and June 2014. Results Of the 18993 eligible potential participants, completed surveys were obtained from 7661 (40% response rate), with 474 (7%) patients reporting an adverse event. Of those who reported an adverse event, a significant majority reported an informal or bedside disclosure (91%; 430/474). Only 79 patients (17%) participated in a formal open disclosure meeting. Most informal disclosures were provided by nurses, with only 25% provided by medical practitioners. Conclusions Experiences of open disclosure may be enhanced by informing patients of their right to full disclosure in advance of or upon admission to hospital, and recognition of and support for informal or bedside disclosure for appropriate types of incidents. A review of the open disclosure guidelines in relation to the types of adverse events that require formal open disclosure and those more suitable to informal bedside disclosure is indicated. Guidelines for bedside disclosure should be drafted to assist medical practitioners and other health professionals facilitate and improve their communications about adverse events. Alignment of formal disclosure with policy requirements may also be enhanced by training multidisciplinary teams in the process. What is known about the topic? While open disclosure is required in all cases of serious adverse events, patients' experiences are variable, and lack of, or poor quality disclosures are all too common. What does this paper add? This paper presents experiences reported by patients across New South Wales in a large cross-sectional survey. Unlike previous studies of open disclosure, recently hospitalised patients were identified and invited using data linkage with medical records. Findings suggest that most patients receive informal disclosures rather than a process that aligns with the current policy guidance. What are the implications for practitioners? Experiences of open disclosure may be enhanced by informing patients of their right to full disclosure in advance of or upon admission to hospital, and recognition of and support for informal or bedside disclosure for appropriate types of incidents.

The potential for inadvertent adverse consequences of open disclosure in Australia: when good intentions cause further harm

Open disclosure is a valuable process which has the potential to benefit both the patients who receive the open disclosure and the health care professionals (or organisations) who provide it. The benefits from open disclosure will most often be seen when open disclosure is performed in an ‘ideal’ manner. When open disclosure is suboptimal, it can lead to harmful consequences for patients and health care providers alike. Numerous factors may contribute to an inadequate open disclosure including: potentially inadequate legal protection for health care professionals or organisations; failing to meet patient and/or family expectations; health care professionals experiencing a lack of education, training and support from the health care organisation; or a fear of litigation. An inadequate open disclosure may result in inadvertent consequences including: patients/families who are dissatisfied; potentially preventable litigation; legal repercussions for health care professionals and organisations; and patient harm where open disclosure is not implemented. This article seeks to explore these barriers and considers how the implementation of open disclosure could be improved to overcome these barriers. Overcoming these barriers should help to reduce the risk of inadvertent consequences and lead to better outcomes for patients, health care professionals and health care organisations.

Do Written Disclosures of Serious Events Increase Risk of Malpractice Claims? One Health Care System's Experience

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Objective

This study aimed to determine whether Pennsylvania ACT 13 of 2002 (Mcare) requiring the written and verbal disclosure of “serious events” was accompanied by increased malpractice claims or compensation costs in a large U.S. health system.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the rate of malpractice claims. The secondary outcome was the amount paid for compensation of malpractice claims. The analyses tested the relationship between the rate of serious event disclosures and the outcome variables, adjusted for the year of the event, category of claim, and the degree of “harm” related to the event.

Results

There were 15,028 serious event disclosures and 1302 total malpractice claims among 1,587,842 patients admitted to UPMC hospitals from May 17, 2002, to June 30, 2011. As the number of serious event disclosures increased, the number of malpractice claims per 1000 admissions remained between 0.62 and 1.03. Based on a matched analysis of claims that were disclosed and those that were not (195 pairs), disclosure status was significantly associated with increased claim payout (disclosures had 2.71 times the payout; 95% confidence interval, 1.56–4.72). Claims with higher harm levels H and I were independently associated with higher payouts than claims with lower harm levels A to D (11.15 times the payout; 95% confidence interval, 2.30–54.07).

Conclusions and Relevance

Implementation of a mandated serious event disclosure law in Pennsylvania was not associated with an overall increase in malpractice claims filed. Among events of similar degree of harm, disclosed events had higher compensation paid compared with those that had not been disclosed.

Disclosure of Adverse Events in Pediatrics

Despite increasing attention to issues of patient safety, preventable adverse events (AEs) continue to occur, causing direct and consequential injuries to patients, families, and health care providers. Pediatricians generally agree that there is an ethical obligation to inform patients and families about preventable AEs and medical errors. Nonetheless, barriers, such as fear of liability, interfere with disclosure regarding preventable AEs. Changes to the legal system, improved communications skills, and carefully developed disclosure policies and programs can improve the quality and frequency of appropriate AE disclosure communications.

Case Outcomes in a Communication-and-Resolution Program in New York Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To determine case outcomes in a communication-and-resolution program (CRP) implemented to respond to adverse events in general surgery.

STUDY SETTING

Five acute-care hospitals in New York City.

STUDY DESIGN

Following CRP implementation, hospitals recorded information about each CRP event for 22 months.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Risk managers prospectively collected data in collaboration with representatives from the hospital's insurer. External researchers administered an online satisfaction survey to clinicians involved in CRP events.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Among 125 CRP cases, disclosure conversations were carried out in 92 percent, explanations were conveyed in 88 percent, and apologies were offered in 72.8 percent. Three quarters of events did not involve substandard care. Compensation offers beyond bill waivers were deemed appropriate in 9 of 30 of cases in which substandard care caused harm and communicated in six such cases. In 44 percent of cases, hospitals identified steps that could be taken to improve safety. Clinicians had low awareness of the workings of the CRP, but high satisfaction with their experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk of CRPs' work is in investigating and communicating about events not caused by substandard care. These CRPs were quite successful in handling such events, but less consistent in offering compensation in cases involving substandard care.

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.

The "Seven Pillars" Response to Patient Safety Incidents: Effects on Medical Liability Processes and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a communication and resolution approach to patient harm is associated with changes in medical liability processes and outcomes.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Administrative, safety, and risk management data from the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, from 2002 to 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

Single health system, interrupted time series design. Using Mann-Whitney U tests and segmented regression models, we compared means and trends in incident reports, claims, event analyses, patient communication consults, legal fees, costs per claim, settlements, and self-insurance expenses before and after the implementation of the "Seven Pillars" communication and resolution intervention.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Queried databases maintained by Department of Safety and Risk Management and the Department of Administrative Services at UIH. Extracted data from risk module of the Midas incident reporting system.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The intervention nearly doubled the number of incident reports, halved the number of claims, and reduced legal fees and costs as well as total costs per claim, settlement amounts, and self-insurance costs.

CONCLUSIONS

A communication and optimal resolution (CANDOR) approach to adverse events was associated with long-lasting, clinically and financially significant changes in a large set of core medical liability process and outcome measures.

An exploration of the implementation of open disclosure of adverse events in the UK: a scoping review and qualitative exploration

Background

In 2009 the UK National Patient Safety Agency relaunched its Being Open framework to facilitate the open disclosure of adverse events to patients in the NHS. The implementation of the framework has been, and remains, challenging in practice.

Aim

The aim of this work was to both critically evaluate and extend the current evidence base relating to open disclosure, with a view to supporting the implementation of a policy of open disclosure of adverse events in the NHS.

Methods

This work was conducted in three phases. The first phase comprised two focused systematic literature reviews, one summarising empirical research on the effectiveness of interventions to enhance open disclosure, and a second, broader scoping review, looking at reports of current opinion and practice and wider knowledge. The second phase involved primary qualitative research with the objective of generating new knowledge about UK-based stakeholders’ views on their role in and experiences of open disclosure. Stakeholder interviews were analysed using the framework approach. The third phase synthesised the findings from the first two phases to inform and develop a set of short pragmatic suggestions for NHS trust management, to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of open disclosure.

Results

A total of 610 papers met the inclusion criteria for the broad review. A large body of literature discussed open disclosure from a number of related, but sometimes conflicted, perspectives. Evidential gaps persist and current practice is based largely on expert consensus rather than evidence. There appears to be a tension between the existing pragmatic guidance and the more in-depth critiques of what being consistent and transparent in health care really means. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria for the more focused review. There was little evidence for the effectiveness of disclosure alone on organisational or individual outcomes or of interventions to promote and support open disclosure. Interviews with stakeholders identified strong support for the basic principle of being honest with patients or relatives when someone was seriously harmed by health care. In practice however, the issues are complex and there is confusion about a number of issues relating to disclosure policies in the UK. The interviews generated insights into the difficulties perceived within health care at individual and institutional levels, in relation to fully implementing the Being Open guidance.

Conclusions

There are several clear strategies that the NHS could learn from to implement and sustain a policy of openness. Literature reviews and stakeholder accounts both identified the potential benefits of a culture that was generally more open (not just retrospectively open about serious harm). Future work could usefully evaluate the impact of disclosure on legal challenges within the NHS, best practice in models of support and training for open disclosure, embedding disclosure conversations in critical incident analysis and disclosure of less serious events.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Delivering the truth: challenges and opportunities for error disclosure in obstetrics

Disclosing harmful medical errors to patients is a prominent component of the patient safety movement. Patients expect it and safety agencies and experts advocate its implementation. Obstetrics presents unique challenges to carrying out disclosure recommendations: childbirth is a life-changing, emotionally charged, and dynamic family event characterized by high expectations and unpredictability, and perinatal care is provided by complex ad hoc teams in a litigious area of medicine. Despite these challenges, transparent communication with parents about unexpected adverse birth outcomes remains critical. We call on clinicians and professional societies to pursue a deeper understanding of the unique challenges of disclosure in obstetrics and prepare themselves to conduct these difficult conversations well.

Institutional disclosure: promise and problems

This study explores rationale for and barriers to the prompt and honest disclosure by healthcare organizations of care-related un-intended harm to patients. Although fear of legal action is frequently put forward as the reason that disclosure programs have been slow to be adopted by the medical community, social and nonjurisprudential explanations also pose challenges. This study identifies multiple facilitators and obstacles that transcend concerns about litigation and limit disclosure of adverse events that result in serious injury or death.

Building bridges: future directions for medical error disclosure research

OBJECTIVE

The disclosure of medical errors has attracted considerable research interest in recent years. However, the research to date has lacked interdisciplinary dialog, making translation of findings into medical practice challenging. This article lays out the disciplinary perspectives of the fields of medicine, ethics, law and communication on medical error disclosure and identifies gaps and tensions that occur at these interdisciplinary boundaries.

METHODS

This article summarizes the discussion of an interdisciplinary error disclosure panel at the 2012 EACH Conference in St. Andrews, Scotland, in light of the current literature across four academic disciplines.

RESULTS

Current medical, ethical, legal and communication perspectives on medical error disclosure are presented and discussed with particular emphasis on the interdisciplinary gaps and tensions.

CONCLUSION

The authors encourage interdisciplinary collaborations that strive for a functional approach to understanding and improving the disclosure of medical errors with the ultimate goal to improve quality and promote safer medical care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interdisciplinary collaborations are needed to reconcile the needs of the stakeholders involved in medical error disclosure. A particular challenge is the effective translation of error disclosure research into practice. Concrete research questions are provided throughout the manuscript to facilitate a resolution of the tensions that currently impede interdisciplinary progress.

Maternity care and liability: most promising policy strategies for improvement

BACKGROUND

The present liability system is not serving well childbearing women and newborns, maternity care clinicians, or maternity care payers. Examination of evidence about the impact of this system on maternity care led us to identify seven aims for a high-functioning liability system in this clinical context. Herein, we identify policy strategies that are most likely to meet these aims and contribute to needed improvements. A companion paper considers strategies that hold little promise.

METHODS

We considered whether 25 strategies that have been used or proposed for improvement have met or could meet the seven aims. We used a best available evidence approach and drew on more recent empirical legal studies and health services research about maternity care and liability when available, and considered other studies when unavailable.

FINDINGS

Ten strategies seem to have potential to improve liability matters in maternity care across multiple aims. The most promising strategy--implementing rigorous maternity care quality improvement (QI) programs--has led to better quality and outcomes of care, and impressive declines in liability claims, payouts, and premium levels.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of promising strategies warrant demonstration and evaluation at the level of states, health systems, or other appropriate entities. Rigorous QI programs have a growing track record of contributing to diverse aims of a high-functioning liability system and seem to be a win-win-win prevention strategy for childbearing families, maternity care providers, and payers. Effective strategies are also needed to assist families when women and newborns are injured.

The flaws in state 'apology' and 'disclosure' laws dilute their intended impact on malpractice suits

Apologies are rare in the medical world, where health care providers fear that admissions of guilt or expressions of regret could be used by plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits. Nevertheless, some states are moving toward giving health care providers legal protection so that they feel free to apologize to patients for a medical mistake. Advocates believe that these laws are beneficial for patients and providers. However, our analysis of "apology" and "disclosure" laws in thirty-four states and the District of Columbia finds that most of the laws have major shortcomings. These may actually discourage comprehensive disclosures and apologies and weaken the laws' impact on malpractice suits. Many could be resolved by improved statutory design and communication of new legal requirements and protections.

Changes in intern attitudes toward medical error and disclosure

CONTEXT

The 2000 Institute of Medicine report, 'To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System', focused the medical community on medical error. This focus led to educational initiatives and legislation designed to minimise errors and increase their disclosure.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate whether increased general awareness about medical error has affected interns' attitudes toward medical error and disclosure by comparing responses to surveys of interns carried out at either end of the last decade.

METHODS

Two cohorts of interns for the academic years 1999, 2000 and 2001 (n = 304) and 2008 and 2009 (n = 206) at a university hospital were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving errors that resulted in, respectively, no permanent harm and an adverse outcome. The interns were questioned regarding their likely responses to error and disclosure.

RESULTS

We collected 510 surveys (100% response rate). For both scenarios, the percentage of interns who would be willing to fully disclose their mistakes increased substantially from 1999-2001 to 2008-2009 ('no permanent harm': 38% and 71%, respectively [p < 0.001]; 'adverse outcome': 29% and 55%, respectively [p < 0.001]). About two thirds of fully disclosing interns in both scenarios believed 'the patient's right to full information' to be the primary reason for their disclosure. Fear of litigation in response to error disclosure decreased (70% and 52%, respectively), the percentage of interns who felt that 'medical mistakes are preventable if doctors know enough' decreased (49% and 31%, respectively), belief that competent doctors keep emotions and uncertainties to themselves decreased (51% and 14%, respectively), and agreement with leaving medicine if one (as an intern) caused harm or death decreased (50% and 3%, respectively). Prior training about medical mistakes increased more than four-fold between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This comparison of intern responses to a survey administered at either end of the last decade reveals that there may have been some important changes in interns' intended disclosure practices and attitudes toward medical error.

What prevents incident disclosure, and what can be done to promote it?

BACKGROUND

Adverse-event incident disclosure is gaining international attention as being central to incident management, practice improvement, and public engagement, but those charged with its execution are experiencing barriers. Findings have emerged from two large studies: an evaluation of the 2006-2008 Australian Open Disclosure Pilot, and a 2009-2010 study of patients' and relatives' views on actual disclosures. Clinicians and patients interviewed in depth suggest that open disclosure communication has been prevented by a range of uncertainties, fears, and doubts.

METHODS

Across Australia, 147 clinical staff were interviewed (mostly over the phone), and 142 patients and relatives were interviewed in their homes or over the phone. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by three independent investigators. Transcription analyses yielded thematic domains, each with a range of ancillary issues.

RESULTS

Analysis of interview transcripts revealed several important barriers to disclosure: uncertainty among clinicians about what patients and family members regard as requiring disclosure; clinicians' assumption that those harmed are intent on blaming individuals and not interested in or capable of understanding the full complexity of clinical failures; concerns on the part of clinicians about how to interact with (angry or distressed) patients and family members; uncertainties about how to guide colleagues through disclosure; and doubts surrounding how to manage disclosure in the context of suspected litigation risk, qualified-privilege constraints, and risk-averse approaches adopted by insurers.

CONCLUSIONS

Disclosure practices appear to be inhibited by a wide range of barriers, only some of which have been previously reported. Strategies to overcome them are put forward for frontline clinicians, managerial staff, patient advocates, and policy agencies.

Patients' and family members' views on how clinicians enact and how they should enact incident disclosure: the "100 patient stories" qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate patients' and family members' perceptions and experiences of disclosure of healthcare incidents and to derive principles of effective disclosure.

DESIGN

Retrospective qualitative study based on 100 semi-structured, in depth interviews with patients and family members.

SETTING

Nationwide multisite survey across Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

39 patients and 80 family members who were involved in high severity healthcare incidents (leading to death, permanent disability, or long term harm) and incident disclosure. Recruitment was via national newspapers (43%), health services where the incidents occurred (28%), two internet marketing companies (27%), and consumer organisations (2%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' recurrent experiences and concerns expressed in interviews.

RESULTS

Most patients and family members felt that the health service incident disclosure rarely met their needs and expectations. They expected better preparation for incident disclosure, more shared dialogue about what went wrong, more follow-up support, input into when the time was ripe for closure, and more information about subsequent improvement in process. This analysis provided the basis for the formulation of a set of principles of effective incident disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite growing prominence of open disclosure, discussion about healthcare incidents still falls short of patient and family member expectations. Healthcare organisations and providers should strengthen their efforts to meet patients' (and family members') needs and expectations.

How does routine disclosure of medical error affect patients' propensity to sue and their assessment of provider quality? Evidence from survey data

BACKGROUND

Although strongly favored by patients and ethically imperative for providers, the disclosure of medical errors to patients remains rare because providers fear that it will trigger lawsuits and jeopardize their reputation. To date little is known how patients might respond to their providers' disclosure of a medical error even when paired with an offer of remediation.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A representative sample of Illinois residents was surveyed in 2008 about their knowledge about medical errors, their confidence that their providers would disclose medical errors to them, and their propensity to sue and recommend providers that disclose medical errors and offer to remedy them. We report the response patterns to these questions. As robustness checks, we also estimate the covariate-adjusted distributions and test the associations among these dimensions of medical-error disclosure.

RESULTS

Of the 1018 respondents, 27% would sue and 38% would recommend the hospital after medical error disclosure with an accompanying offer of remediation. Compared with the least confident respondents, those who were more confident in their providers' commitment to disclose were not likely to sue but significantly and substantially more likely to recommend their provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who are confident in their providers' commitment to disclose medical errors are not more litigious and far more forgiving than patients who have no faith in their providers' commitment to disclose.

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.

Making the case for laws that improve health: a framework for public health law research

CONTEXT

Public health law has received considerable attention in recent years and has become an essential field in public health. Public health law research, however, has received less attention.

METHODS

Expert commentary.

FINDINGS

This article explores public health law research, defined as the scientific study of the relation of law and legal practices to population health. The article offers a logic model of public health law research and a typology of approaches to studying the effects of law on public health. Research on the content and prevalence of public health laws, processes of adopting and implementing laws, and the extent to which and mechanisms through which law affects health outcomes can use methods drawn from epidemiology, economics, sociology, and other disciplines. The maturation of public health law research as a field depends on methodological rigor, adequate research funding, access to appropriate data sources, and policymakers' use of research findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health law research is a young field but holds great promise for supporting evidence-based policy making that will improve population health.

Risk managers, physicians, and disclosure of harmful medical errors

BACKGROUND

Physicians are encouraged to disclose medical errors to patients, which often requires close collaboration between physicians and risk managers.

METHODS

An anonymous national survey of 2,988 healthcare facility-based risk managers was conducted between November 2004 and March 2005, and results were compared with those of a previous survey (conducted between July 2003 and March 2004) of 1,311 medical physicians in Washington and Missouri. Both surveys included an error-disclosure scenario for an obvious and a less obvious error with scripted response options.

RESULTS

More risk managers than physicians were aware that an error-reporting system was present at their hospital (81% versus 39%, p < .001) and believed that mechanisms to inform physicians about errors in their hospital were adequate (51% versus 17%, p < .001). More risk managers than physicians strongly agreed that serious errors should be disclosed to patients (70% versus 49%, p < .001). Across both error scenario, risk managers were more likely than physicians to definitely recommend that the error be disclosed (76% versus 50%, p < .001) and to provide full details about how the error would be prevented in the future (62% versus 51%, p < .001). However, physicians were more likely than risk managers to provide a full apology recognizing the harm caused by the error (39% versus 21%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk managers have more favorable attitudes about disclosing errors to patients compared with physicians but are less supportive of providing a full apology. These differences may create conflicts between risk managers and physicians regarding disclosure. Health care institutions should promote greater collaboration between these two key participants in disclosure conversations.

Disclosing medical errors to patients: it's not what you say, it's what they hear

BACKGROUND

There is consensus that patients should be told if they are injured by medical care. However, there is little information on how they react to different methods of disclosure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if volunteers' reactions to videos of physicians disclosing adverse events are related to the physician apologizing and accepting responsibility.

DESIGN

Survey of viewers randomized to watch videos of disclosures of three adverse events (missed mammogram, chemotherapy overdose, delay in surgical therapy) with designed variations in extent of apology (full, non-specific, none) and acceptance of responsibility (full, none).

PARTICIPANTS

Adult volunteer sample from the general community in Baltimore.

MEASUREMENTS

Viewer evaluations of physicians in the videos using standardized scales.

RESULTS

Of 200 volunteers, 50% were <40 years, 25% were female, 80% were African American, and 50% had completed high school. For designed variations, scores were non-significantly higher for full apology/responsibility, and lower for no apology/no responsibility. Perceived apology or responsibility was related to significantly higher ratings (chi-square, 81% vs. 38% trusted; 56% vs. 27% would refer, p < 0.05), but inclination to sue was unchanged (43% vs. 47%). In logistic regression analyses adjusting for age, gender, race and education, perceived apology and perceived responsibility were independently related to higher ratings for all measures. Inclination to sue was reduced non-significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients will probably respond more favorably to physicians who apologize and accept responsibility for medical errors than those who do not apologize or give ambiguous responses. Patient perceptions of what is said may be more important than what is actually said. Desire to sue may not be affected despite a full apology and acceptance of responsibility.

Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients

PURPOSE

To assess radiologists' attitudes about disclosing errors to patients by using a survey with a vignette involving an error interpreting a patient's mammogram, leading to a delayed cancer diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an institutional review board-approved survey of 364 radiologists at seven geographically distinct Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites that interpreted mammograms from 2005 to 2006. Radiologists received a vignette in which comparison screening mammograms were placed in the wrong order, leading a radiologist to conclude calcifications were decreasing in number when they were actually increasing, delaying a cancer diagnosis. Radiologists were asked (a) how likely they would be to disclose this error, (b) what information they would share, and (c) their malpractice attitudes and experiences.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-three (67%) of 364 radiologists responded to the disclosure vignette questions. Radiologists' responses to whether they would disclose the error included "definitely not" (9%), "only if asked by the patient" (51%), "probably" (26%), and "definitely" (14%). Regarding information they would disclose, 24% would "not say anything further to the patient," 31% would tell the patient that "the calcifications are larger and are now suspicious for cancer," 30% would state "the calcifications may have increased on your last mammogram, but their appearance was not as worrisome as it is now," and 15% would tell the patient "an error occurred during the interpretation of your last mammogram, and the calcifications had actually increased in number, not decreased." Radiologists' malpractice experiences were not consistently associated with their disclosure responses.

CONCLUSION

Many radiologists report reluctance to disclose a hypothetical mammography error that delayed a cancer diagnosis. Strategies should be developed to increase radiologists' comfort communicating with patients.

Team approach to care in labor and delivery

Changing to a teamwork culture in labor and delivery requires a real commitment. The skills involved can be taught to all healthcare providers. The benefits of a teamwork culture may include improved patient outcomes, less medical errors, and improved patient and staff satisfaction. Malpractice claim reduction may possibly occur through these improved outcomes and better communication with our patients.

Social aspects of clinical errors

Clinical errors, whether committed by doctors, nurses or other professions allied to healthcare, remain a sensitive issue requiring open debate and policy formulation in order to reduce them. The literature suggests that the issues underpinning errors made by healthcare professionals involve concerns about patient safety, professional disclosure, apology, litigation, compensation, processes of recording and policy development to enhance quality service. Anecdotally, we are aware of narratives of minor errors, which may well have been covered up and remain officially undisclosed whilst the major errors resulting in damage and death to patients alarm both professionals and public with resultant litigation and compensation. This paper attempts to unravel some of these issues by highlighting the historical nature of clinical errors and drawing parallels to contemporary times by outlining the 'compensation culture'. We then provide an overview of what constitutes a clinical error and review the healthcare professional strategies for managing such errors.

Apologies and medical error

One way in which physicians can respond to a medical error is to apologize. Apologies--statements that acknowledge an error and its consequences, take responsibility, and communicate regret for having caused harm--can decrease blame, decrease anger, increase trust, and improve relationships. Importantly, apologies also have the potential to decrease the risk of a medical malpractice lawsuit and can help settle claims by patients. Patients indicate they want and expect explanations and apologies after medical errors and physicians indicate they want to apologize. However, in practice, physicians tend to provide minimal information to patients after medical errors and infrequently offer complete apologies. Although fears about potential litigation are the most commonly cited barrier to apologizing after medical error, the link between litigation risk and the practice of disclosure and apology is tenuous. Other barriers might include the culture of medicine and the inherent psychological difficulties in facing one's mistakes and apologizing for them. Despite these barriers, incorporating apology into conversations between physicians and patients can address the needs of both parties and can play a role in the effective resolution of disputes related to medical error.

Medical malpractice and the chest physician

The US malpractice system is based on tort law, which holds physicians responsible for not harming patients intentionally or through negligence. Malpractice claims are brought against physicians from most medical disciplines in proportion to their numbers in practice and to the frequency with which they perform procedures. Claims against chest physicians most commonly allege injuries caused by the following: (1) errors in diagnosis, (2) improper performance of procedures, (3) failure to supervise or monitor care, (4) medication errors, and (5) failure to recognize the complications of treatment. Most of these injuries occur in hospitals, and many of the injured patients die. The social goals of the medical malpractice system include the following: (1) compensating patients injured through negligence, (2) exacting corrective justice, and (3) deterring unsafe practices by creating an economic incentive to take greater precautions. Some patients injured through negligence are compensated, but most are not. Claims are brought against some negligent physicians but also some who are not negligent, and being negligent does not guarantee that a claim will be brought. The deterrent effect of medical malpractice is unproven, and the malpractice system may prompt defensive medicine and increase health-care costs. And by stressing individual accountability, it conflicts with a systems-oriented approach to reducing medical errors.

Health care professionals’ views of implementing a policy of open disclosure of errors

Objectives:

To understand the views of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and health managers of open disclosure of medical errors.

Methods:

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 131 health professionals to understand their experiences of implementing open disclosure in 21 providers in Australia.

Results:

Health professionals are positive about open disclosure and are applying the model to patient- clinician communication encounters more generally. Workforce and systems competencies enable clinicians and health service managers to implement open disclosure principles and practices, although a propensity to hide errors, wavering commitment and to exacerbate the problem inhibits implementation as policy intends. The gap between policy objectives and their implementation limits the benefits to health professionals.

Conclusion:

Health services must develop organizing capabilities if open disclosure is to be implemented as intended. Activities should identify and address factors that impede implementation and enable workforce and system competencies to develop. These activities will allow health services to adapt central open disclosure policy to local conditions and to embed its principles and practices organization-wide.