Patients' and family members' experiences of open disclosure following adverse events

University of Technology Sydney, Australia.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.76). 10/2008; 20(6):421-32. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzn043
Source: PubMed


To explore patients' and family members' perceptions of Open Disclosure of adverse events that occurred during their health care.
We interviewed 23 people involved in adverse events and incident disclosure using a semi-structured, open-ended guide. We analyzed transcripts using thematic discourse analysis.
Four States in Australia: New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia.
Twenty-three participants were recruited as part of an evaluation of the Australian Open Disclosure pilot commissioned by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.
All participants (except one) appreciated the opportunity to meet with staff and have the adverse event explained to them. Their accounts also reveal a number of concerns about how Open Disclosure is enacted: disclosure not occurring promptly or too informally; disclosure not being adequately followed up with tangible support or change in practice; staff not offering an apology, and disclosure not providing opportunities for consumers to meet with the staff originally involved in the adverse event.
of participants' accounts suggests that a combination of formal Open Disclosure, a full apology, and an offer of tangible support has a higher chance of gaining consumer satisfaction than if one or more of these components is absent.
Staff need to become more attuned in their disclosure communication to the victim s perceptions and experience of adverse events, to offer an appropriate apology, to support victims long-term as well as short-term, and to consider using consumers' insights into adverse events for the purpose of service improvement.

Download full-text


Available from: Anthony Tuckett,
52 Reads
  • Source
    • "Furthermore, a number of studies have now shown that inadequate communication itself may cause communication failures, and that these failures have real consequences for patients' health: they harm patients (Iedema et al., 2008). Much of this communication harm has been shown to be avoidable. "
    Communicating Quality and Safety in Health Care, Edited by Rick Iedema; Donella Piper; Marie Manidis, 08/2015: chapter Chapter 1: pages 1-15; Cambridge University Press., ISBN: 978-1-107-69932-8
  • Source
    • "are untoward incidents, therapeutic misadventures, iatrogenic injuries, or other adverse occurrences directly associated with care or services provided within the jurisdiction of the medical centre, outpatient clinic, or other [health care] facility " (VHa Policy, cited in Cantor et al., 2005, p. 6). 2. It remains unclear from the COPIC materials, however, whether it is the admission of liability and settlement or the grief management, or both, that lead to the positive results reported to flow forth from Open Disclosure. 3. This article is part of a series of articles that reports on the national evaluation of Open Disclosure practices in australia (see References and Iedema et al., 2008b; Iedema, Sorensen, & Piper, 2008; Sorensen, Iedema, Piper, Manias, & Tuckett, in press). The research was funded by the australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (aCSQHC) and was managed by Queensland Health. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article presents an inquiry into how clinicians realize a health policy reform initiative called Open Disclosure. Open Disclosure mandates that discussions with patients/family and team staff about “adverse events” are now no longer ad hoc, individualized, and without consequences for how the work is done, but planned, collaborative, and leading to systems change. The article presents an empirical analysis of a corpus of interviews about the impact of Open Disclosure on clinicians' practices. It situates Open Disclosure in the context of arguments that health care workers are increasingly expected to do “emotional labor” with patients and their families, in that staff are advised to practise “reflexive listening” as a means of managing patients' and family members' emotions in response to incidents. The analysis suggests that thanks to the intensity of Open Disclosure interactions, clinicians may be introduced to an affective-interactive space that they were hitherto unaware of and unable to enter or attain what Nigel Thrift calls “a new structure of attention.”
    Journal of Language and Social Psychology 05/2009; 28(2):139-157. DOI:10.1177/0261927X08330614 · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUNDThere 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. OBJECTIVETo determine if volunteers’ reactions to videos of physicians disclosing adverse events are related to the physician apologizing and accepting responsibility. DESIGNSurvey 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). PARTICIPANTSAdult volunteer sample from the general community in Baltimore. MEASUREMENTSViewer evaluations of physicians in the videos using standardized scales. RESULTSOf 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. CONCLUSIONSPatients 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.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 09/2009; 24(9):1012-1017. DOI:10.1007/s11606-009-1044-3 · 3.45 Impact Factor
Show more