Article

Disclosure, Apology, and Offer Programs: Stakeholders' Views of Barriers to and Strategies for Broad Implementation.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center of Harvard Medical School Massachusetts Medical Society Harvard School of Public Health University of Michigan Health System/University of Michigan Medical School.
Milbank Quarterly (Impact Factor: 5.06). 12/2012; 90(4):682-705. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00679.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Context: The Disclosure, Apology, and Offer (DA&O) model, a response to patient injuries caused by medical care, is an innovative approach receiving national attention for its early success as an alternative to the existing inherently adversarial, inefficient, and inequitable medical liability system. Examples of DA&O programs, however, are few. Methods: Through key informant interviews, we investigated the potential for more widespread implementation of this model by provider organizations and liability insurers, defining barriers to implementation and strategies for overcoming them. Our study focused on Massachusetts, but we also explored themes that are broadly generalizable to other states. Findings: We found strong support for the DA&O model among key stakeholders, who cited its benefits for both the liability system and patient safety. The respondents did not perceive any insurmountable barriers to broad implementation, and they identified strategies that could be pursued relatively quickly. Such solutions would permit a range of organizations to implement the model without legislative hurdles. Conclusions: Although more data are needed about the outcomes of DA&O programs, the model holds considerable promise for transforming the current approach to medical liability and patient safety.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
183 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2001, the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) implemented a novel medical error disclosure program. This study analyzes the effect of this program on gastroenterology (GI)-related claims and costs. This was a review of claims in the UMHS Risk Management Database (1990-2010), naming a gastroenterologist. Claims were classified according to pre-determined categories. Claims data, including incident date, date of resolution, and total liability dollars, were reviewed. Mean total liability incurred per claim in the pre- and post-implementation eras was compared. Patient encounter data from the Division of Gastroenterology was also reviewed in order to benchmark claims data with changes in clinical volume. There were 238,911 GI encounters in the pre-implementation era and 411,944 in the post-implementation era. A total of 66 encounters resulted in claims: 38 in the pre-implementation era and 28 in the post-implementation era. Of the total number of claims, 15.2% alleged delay in diagnosis/misdiagnosis, 42.4% related to a procedure, and 42.4% involved improper management, treatment, or monitoring. The reduction in the proportion of encounters resulting in claims was statistically significant (P=0.001), as was the reduction in time to claim resolution (1,000 vs. 460 days) (P<0.0001). There was also a reduction in the mean total liability per claim ($167,309 pre vs. $81,107 post, 95% confidence interval: 33682.5-300936.2 pre vs. 1687.8-160526.7 post). Implementation of a novel medical error disclosure program, promoting transparency and quality improvement, not only decreased the number of GI-related claims per patient encounter, but also dramatically shortened the time to claim resolution.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 04/2014; 109(4):460-4. DOI:10.1038/ajg.2013.375 · 9.21 Impact Factor
  • [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