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.

1 Follower
 · 
123 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : With almost $35 billion appropriated in government incentives and additional funds spent in development by institutions, the concept of an electronic patient record (EPR) within integrated health information technology (HIT) systems has taken the United States by storm. However, the United Kingdom's expensive struggle to implement a seamless EPR highlights the variety of pitfalls and unforeseen complications ranging from recognizing the importance of accurately assessing EPR-related patient risks to understanding the difficulties in the exchange of information across a gradient of distinct interfaces. Furthermore, the tenuous relationship between HIT implementation and patient outcomes in the short-term draws into question the value of EPR construction costs along with the ethical and privacy issues they create. Nonetheless, experts agree that with future software advances and physician familiarization, a robust HIT will be an important asset to patient autonomy, epidemiologic and clinical research, evidence-based error reduction and the potential for cost reduction. This article seeks to review the current status of this initiative and potential pitfalls that remain.
    The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 05/2014; DOI:10.1097/MAJ.0000000000000287 · 1.52 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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disclosure is increasingly seen as a key component of efforts to improve safety, but does not yet reliably occur in all organizations in the U.S. We describe the experience to date with disclosure in the U.S. and illustrate the issues with specific clinical examples. Both reputational and legal concerns represent substantial barriers. The evidence to date-mostly from single sites - shows that not only is disclosure the right thing to do, it also appears to decrease malpractice risk. We also discuss the related issue of compensation-practices around this vary greatly. Underlying the push for greater disclosure is also the belief that better disclosure results in an improved culture of safety, which in turn may improve the quality and safety of care. Providers have an ethical imperative to disclosure error to patients, and the limited available evidence shows that doing so actually decreases malpractice risk. While disclosure is not yet routine practice in the U.S., the approach is clearly gaining momentum. Telling patients what happened is not enough. They also deserve an apology, and if harmed, to be made whole emotionally and financially. Greater disclosure may not only help individual patients, but may also help with improving safety overall.
    The surgeon: journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland 01/2014; 12(2). DOI:10.1016/j.surge.2013.12.002 · 2.21 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
2 Downloads
Available from
Mar 11, 2015