Open disclosure of adverse events: exploring the implications of service and policy structures on practice

Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study

Background

There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved.

Objectives

To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement.

Design

A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases.

Setting

National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2).

Participants

We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families.

Results

The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced.

Limitations

Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups.

Conclusions

We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Error disclosure in neonatal intensive care: a multicentre, prospective, observational study

IMPORTANCE

Surveys based on hypothetical situations suggest that health-care providers agree that disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients and families is a professional obligation but do not always disclose them. Disclosure rates and reasons for the choice have not previously been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the proportion of errors disclosed by neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) professionals to parents and identify motives for and barriers to disclosure.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study nested in a randomised controlled trial (Study on Preventing Adverse Events in Neonates (SEPREVEN); ClinicalTrials.gov). Event disclosure was not intended to be related to the intervention tested.

SETTING

10 NICUs in France with a 20-month follow-up, starting November 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

n=1019 patients with NICU stay ≥2 days with ≥1 error.

EXPOSURE

Characteristics of errors (type, severity, timing of discovery), patients and professionals, self-reported motives for disclosure and non-disclosure.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Rate of error disclosure reported anonymously and voluntarily by physicians and nurses; perceived parental reaction to disclosure.

RESULTS

Among 1822 errors concerning 1019 patients (mean gestational age: 30.8±4.5 weeks), 752 (41.3%) were disclosed. Independent risk factors for non-disclosure were nighttime discovery of error (OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.30), milder consequence (for moderate consequence: OR 1.85; 95% CI 0.89 to 3.86; no consequence: OR 6.49; 95% CI 2.99 to 14.11), a shorter interval between admission and error, error type and fewer beds. The most frequent reported reasons for non-disclosure were parental absence at its discovery and a perceived lack of serious consequence.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In the particular context of the SEPREVEN randomised controlled trial of NICUs, staff did not disclose the majority of errors to parents, especially in the absence of moderate consequence for the infant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02598609.

Cancer nurses' perspective of error disclosure from nurses to patients: A qualitative descriptive study

PURPOSE

This study aims at exploring Cancer Nurses' Perspective of Error Disclosure.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted in 2022, Iran. Data collection methods included observation (121 h), and semi-structured interviews (12 interviews with nurses, and nursing managers). Data analysis was performed using Graneheim and Lundman's approach. This study obtained ethical approval from Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The COREQ checklist was used for study report.

RESULTS

Data analysis resulted in three categories and nine subcategories: Error disclosure as a professional necessity (error disclosure as one of the patient's rights and error disclosure for self-and peer-learning), Error disclosure barriers (cancer-related factors, individual deterrents, nurses' intragroup culture, and organizational deterrents) and Error disclosure facilitators (culture of transparency, managerial support for error disclosure and development of error disclosure protocol).

CONCLUSION

Creating a culture of error disclosure requires removing barriers, and providing facilitators. By reevaluating their professional performance and responsibilities, nurses may help foster a culture of error disclosure, and managers can do the same by encouraging employees and creating a clinical error disclosure manual. The promotion of an error disclosure to the patient culture may be greatly aided by managers. They facilitate this role by providing practical guidance (based on Iranian culture, needs and conditions of cancer patients and their families) to address nurses' concerns about managers' and the organization's negative responses.

Prioritizing Outcome Measures for Value-Based Healthcare: Physicians' Perspectives in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To inform the stepwise transformation to value-based healthcare in Saudi Arabia, we assess physicians' priorities for measuring general patient outcomes. This is done as an initial step toward the implementation of disease-specific outcome sets.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, electronic self-administered questionnaire-based study among physicians in 6 hospitals in Saudi Arabia was conducted between March 2022 and May 2022. Purposive sampling was used to select hospitals and physicians. The questionnaire included 30 health outcomes taken from about 60 disease-specific outcome sets. These were classified into 6 domains per the Outcome Measures Hierarchy Framework of Michael Porter. The physicians were asked to prioritize outcomes in each domain by their order of importance. The Relative Importance Index (RII) and multivariate binary logistic regression were used to analyze the priorities and to relate them to physicians' characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 204 physicians completed the questionnaire accounting for 40% response rate. The top priority outcomes per domain were overall survival (RII 89.4%); quality of life (RII 92.4%); time to treatment (RII 90.8%); incidence of adverse effects (RII 72.9%); need for retreatment (RII 80.5%); and incidence of hospital-acquired infections (RII 89.3%). Regression analysis revealed that physician seniority is a characteristic associated with physicians' perceptions of the importance of measuring health outcomes (highest odds ratio 2.693; 95% CI 1.501-4.833; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Establishing a general set of the most important outcomes that applies to all patients, including survival and mortality, quality of life, adverse events, and complications, need to be considered in the early stages of hospitals' transformation to value-based healthcare.

Moving beyond audit: driving system learning using a novel mortality classification system in a tertiary training hospital in Kenya

Clinical classification systems have proliferated since the APGAR score was introduced in 1953. Numerical scores and classification systems enable qualitative clinical descriptors to be transformed into categorical data, with both clinical utility and ability to provide a common language for learning. The clarity of classification rubrics embedded in a mortality classification system provides the shared basis for discussion and comparison of results. Mortality audits have been long seen as learning tools, but have tended to be siloed within a department and driven by individual learner need. We suggest that the learning needs of the system are also important. Therefore, the ability to learn from small mistakes and problems, rather than just from serious adverse events, remains facilitated.We describe a mortality classification system developed for use in the low-resource context and how it is 'fit for purpose,' able to drive both individual trainee, departmental and system learning. The utility of this classification system is that it addresses the low-resource context, including relevant factors such as limited prehospital emergency care, delayed presentation, and resource constraints. We describe five categories: (1) anticipated death or complication following terminal illness; (2) expected death or complication given clinical situation, despite taking preventive measures; (3) unexpected death or complication, not reasonably preventable; (4) potentially preventable death or complication: quality or systems issues identified and (5) unexpected death or complication resulting from medical intervention. We document how this classification system has driven learning at the individual trainee level, the departmental level, supported cross learning between departments and is being integrated into a comprehensive system-wide learning tool.

Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence

BACKGROUND

Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts.

METHODS

Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified.

RESULTS

After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Health Workers' Perspective on Patient Safety Incident Disclosure in Indonesian Hospitals: A Mixed-Methods Study

Purpose

This study examined how health staff in Indonesian hospitals perceived open disclosure of patient safety incidents (PSIs).

Patients and Methods

This study employed a mixed method explanatory sequential approach. We surveyed 262 health workers and interviewed 12 health workers. Descriptive statistical (frequency distributions and summary measures) analysis was performed to assess the distributions of variables using SPSS. We used thematic analysis for the qualitative data analysis.

Results

We discovered a good level of open disclosure practice, open disclosure system, attitude toward open disclosure and process, open disclosure according to the level of harm resulting from PSIs in the quantitative phase. The qualitative phase revealed that most participants were confused about the difference between incident reporting and incident disclosure. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that major errors or adverse events should be disclosed. The contradictory findings may be due to a lack of awareness of incident disclosure. The important factors in disclosing the incident are effective communication, type of incident, and patient and family characteristics.

Conclusion

Open disclosure is novel for Indonesian health professionals. A good open disclosure system in hospitals could address several issues such as lack of knowledge, lack of policy support, lack of training, and lack of policy. To limit the negative implications of disclosing situations, the government should develop supportive policies at the national level and organize many initiatives at the hospital level.

What Drives Patients' Complaints About Adverse Events in Their Hospital Care? A Data Linkage Study of Australian Adults 45 Years and Older

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine from patient-reported data the relationships between patients' experiences of adverse events (AEs), the disclosure of the events, and patients propensity for complaints or legal action.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to 20,000 participants randomly chosen from the 45 and Up Study. The surveyed participants were older than 45 years and hospitalized in New South Wales, Australia, between January and June 2014. They were identified using data linkage to capture experiences of AEs.

RESULTS

Of the 7661 respondents, 474 participants (7%) reported experiencing an AE. Those who did not receive an apology or expression of regret in the incident disclosure process were significantly more likely to make a complaint (P < 0.05). Those who found out about the event from hospital staff but did not receive a formal open disclosure process were found to be significantly more likely to seek legal advice (P < 0.05). Patients who made a complaint generally perceived that they experienced more problems in their hospital care, with significant differences identified between those who did and did not make a complaint on 13 of the 15-item Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Although incident disclosure was not associated with whether a complaint was made or legal action pursued, significant associations between key aspects of the disclosure process and these outcomes were noted. Significant differences between those who did and did not make a complaint were noted in relation to the timing and apology components of open disclosure. The critical role of overall patient experience in the context of optimal AE management was evident from these data.

Communication about medical errors

Communication about medical errors with patients and families demonstrates respect, compassion, and commitment by providing information, acknowledging harm, and maintaining trust through a process of dialogue that involves multiple conversations. This communication requires knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow healthcare professionals to discuss facts transparently, take responsibility for what happened, and express regret and (as appropriate) apologize; these abilities also allow professionals to describe what will happen next for the patient and explain what will be done to prevent the error from happening to others in the future. Communication about medical errors also encompasses two other contexts: reporting information about errors to healthcare organizations through data collection systems designed to improve patient safety, and discussing errors with fellow healthcare professionals to promote professional learning and receive emotional support. Communication about errors in these three contexts depends on healthcare professionals who are honest, reflective, compassionate, courageous, accountable, reassuring, and willing to acknowledge and engage their own feelings of sadness, fear, and guilt. Healthcare organizations should promote a systems approach to patient safety and cultivate a culture of transparency and learning in which healthcare professionals are supported as they cope with the distress they experience after an error. Communication about errors should be incorporated into all healthcare practice settings (medical, surgical, in-patient, out-patient), and can be taught to medical students and residents using didactic, role-playing, or simulation methodologies.

Uptake of health services by youth living with HIV: a focused ethnography

BACKGROUND

Although several programs have been initiated to increase the uptake of health services amongst youth living with human immunodeficiency virus in the world, disparities in access to these care services still exist.

AIM

This study aimed to explore the experiences of young people as they attend the human immunodeficiency virus clinic and to identify factors affecting their uptake of health services in southern Malawi.

METHODS

A focused ethnography was conducted to collect data from 20 youths living with human immunodeficiency virus and aged between 15 and 24 years through one-on-one in-depth interviews and casual observations. The interviews data were analysed thematically following transcriptions.

FINDINGS

Two themes emerged to describe the factors that facilitated or hindered the uptake of HIV-health services. The first theme: Facilitators to the accessibility and utilization of HIV services consisted subthemes of Health personnel-related factors and Innovative healthcare delivery approach. The second theme: Barriers to utilization and accessibility of HIV service comprised of the following subthemes: Ignorance of health services available, Clinic-related factors and Consumer-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to support health services that are youth-friendly and easily accessible are needed to increase uptake, decrease mortality, prevent disability and promote the wellbeing of youth living with human immunodeficiency virus.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE AND POLICY

Approaches used with this population should be youth-centred and multifaceted, recognizing both the psychosocial challenges and the vulnerability that many youths in Malawi experience.

Phenomenological study of medical interns reflecting on their experiences, of open disclosure communication after medication error: linking rationalisation to the conscious competency matrix

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Errors are common within healthcare, especially those involving the prescribing of medications. Open disclosure is a policy stating doctors should apologise for such errors, discussing them with the harmed parties. Many junior doctors take part in open disclosure without any formal training or experience, which can lead to failure of the apology, and increased patient/family frustration. In this study, we explore the ways in which interns perceive the relationship between medication error and their experience of open disclosure.

METHODS

Using known theoretical frameworks of apology and moral rationalisation, a qualitative study of medical interns who had been involved in open disclosure was conducted. Twelve medical interns volunteered, and were selected using purposive sampling. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews illuminated their clinical experiences of open disclosure after medication error. The data was coded and analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Our data supported three super-ordinate themes: (1) Rationalisation of medical error, (2) Culture of medical error and (3) Apology in practice.

RESULTS

The interns in this study rationalised their observations, their subsequent actions and their language. Rather than reframing their thinking, they became part of a healthcare environment that culturally accepted, promoted and perpetuated error. Rationalisation can lead to loss of context in apologising, which can be perceived as unempathic by the patients/families. However, when reflection and unpacking of their errors, they acknowledged that their reasoning was problematic, recognised the reasons why and were able to reframe their approach to apology for a future occasion.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggests the utility of a learning framework around open disclosure following medication error, for having a supervisor conversation about aspects of the interns' rationalisation of their clinical practice, in their contextualised clinical environment. Further research could clarify whether interns are 'unconsciously incompetent' or 'consciously incompetent', when addressing medication error and preparing to apologise.