Article

Disclosure of "Nonharmful" Medical Errors and Other Events Duty to Disclose

Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Harvey Room 611, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.3). 03/2012; 147(3):282-6. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.1005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An estimated 98 000 patients die in the United States each year because of medical errors. One million or more total medical errors are estimated to occur annually, which is far greater than the actual number of reported "harmful" mistakes. Although it is generally agreed that harmful errors must be disclosed to patients, when the error is deemed to have not resulted in a harmful event, physicians are less inclined to disclose it. Little has been written about the handling of near misses or "nonharmful" errors, and the issues related to disclosure of such events have rarely been discussed in medicine, although they are routinely addressed within the aviation industry. Herein, we elucidate the arguments for reporting nonharmful medical errors to patients and to reporting systems. A definition of what constitutes harm is explored, as well as the ethical issues underpinning disclosure of nonharmful errors. In addition, systematic institutional implications of reporting nonharmful errors are highlighted. Full disclosure of nonharmful errors is advocated, and recommendations on how to discuss errors with patients are provided. An argument that full error disclosure may improve future patient care is also outlined.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Albert W Wu, Mar 11, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
130 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:: To compare the distribution, causes, and consequences of medication errors in the ICU with those in non-ICU settings. DESIGN:: A cross-sectional study of all hospital ICU and non-ICU medication errors reported to the MEDMARX system between 1999 and 2005. Adjusted odds ratios are presented. SETTING:: Hospitals participating in the MEDMARX reporting system. INTERVENTIONS:: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: MEDMARX is an anonymous, self-reported, confidential, deidentified, internet-accessible medication error reporting program that allows hospitals to report, track, and share medication error data. There were 839,553 errors reported from 537 hospitals. ICUs accounted for 55,767 (6.6%) errors, of which 2,045 (3.7%) were considered harmful. Non-ICUs accounted for 783,800 (93.4%) errors, of which 14,471 (1.9%) were harmful. Errors most often originated in the administration phase (ICU 44% vs. non-ICU 33%; odds ratio 1.63 [1.43-1.86]). The most common error type was omission (ICU 26% vs. non-ICU 28%; odds ratio 1.00 [0.91-1.10]). Among harmful errors, dispensing devices (ICU 14% vs. non-ICU 7.1%; odds ratio 2.09 [1.69-2.59]) and calculation mistakes (ICU 9.8% vs. non-ICU 5.3%; odds ratio 1.82 [1.48-2.24]) were more commonly identified to be the cause in the ICU compared to the non-ICU setting. ICU errors were more likely to be associated with any harm (odds ratio 1.89 [1.62-2.17]), permanent harm (odds ratio 2.45 [1.17-5.13]), harm requiring life-sustaining intervention (odds ratio 2.91 [1.86-4.56]), or death (odds ratio 2.48 [1.18-5.19]). When an error did occur, patients and their caregivers were rarely informed (ICU 1.5% vs. non-ICU 2.1%; odds ratio 0.63 [0.48-0.84]) by the time of reporting. CONCLUSIONS:: More harmful errors are reported in ICU than non-ICU settings. Medication errors occur frequently in the administration phase in the ICU. When errors occur, patients and their caregivers are rarely informed. Consideration should be given to developing additional safeguards against ICU errors, particularly during drug administration, and eliminating barriers to error disclosures.
    Critical care medicine 12/2012; 41(2). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318274156a · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using the Institute of Medicine framework that outlines the domains of quality, this article considers four key aspects of health care delivery which have the potential to significantly affect the quality of health care within the pediatric intensive care unit. The discussion covers: performance improvement and how existing methods for reporting, review, and analysis of medical error relate to patient care; team composition and workflow; and the impact of information technologies on clinical practice. Also considered is how protocol-driven and standardized practice affects both patients and the fiscal interests of the health care system.
    Critical care clinics 04/2013; 29(2):129-51. DOI:10.1016/j.ccc.2012.11.002 · 2.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To better understand the process of disclosing medical errors to patients, this research offers a case analysis using Petronios's theoretical frame of Communication Privacy Management (CPM). Given the resistance clinicians often feel about error disclosure, insights into the way choices are made by the clinicians in telling patients about the mistake has the potential to address reasons for resistance. Applying the evidenced-based CPM theory, developed over the last 35 years and dedicated to studying disclosure phenomenon, to disclosing medical mistakes potentially has the ability to reshape thinking about the error disclosure process. Using a composite case representing a surgical mistake, analysis based on CPM theory is offered to gain insights into conversational routines and disclosure management choices of revealing a medical error. The results of this analysis show that an underlying assumption of health information ownership by the patient and family can be at odds with the way the clinician tends to control disclosure about the error. In addition, the case analysis illustrates that there are embedded patterns of disclosure that emerge out of conversations the clinician has with the patient and the patient's family members. These patterns unfold privacy management decisions on the part of the clinician that impact how the patient is told about the error and the way that patients interpret the meaning of the disclosure. These findings suggest the need for a better understanding of how patients manage their private health information in relationship to their expectations for the way they see the clinician caring for or controlling their health information about errors. Significance for public healthMuch of the mission central to public health sits squarely on the ability to communicate effectively. This case analysis offers an in-depth assessment of how error disclosure is complicated by misunderstandings, assuming ownership and control over information, unwittingly following conversational scripts that convey misleading messages, and the difficulty in regulating privacy boundaries in the stressful circumstances that occur with error disclosures. As a consequence, the potential contribution to public health is the ability to more clearly see the significance of the disclosure process that has implications for many public health issues.
    12/2013; 2(3):e30. DOI:10.4081/jphr.2013.e30