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: 3.38). 12/2012; 90(4):682-705. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00679.x
Source: PubMed


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.

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.

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.

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.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard C Boothman, Oct 16, 2015
112 Reads
  • BMJ (online) 12/2012; 345:e8651. DOI:10.1136/bmj.e8651 · 17.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) in health care organizations seek to identify medical injuries promptly; ensure that they are disclosed to patients compassionately; pursue timely resolution through patient engagement, explanation, and, where appropriate, apology and compensation; and use lessons learned to improve patient safety. CRPs have existed for years, but they are being tested in new settings and primed for broad implementation through grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These projects do not require changing laws. However, grantees' experiences suggest that the path to successful dissemination of CRPs would be smoother if the legal environment supported them. State and federal policy makers should try to allay potential defendants' fears of litigation (for example, by protecting apologies from use in court), facilitate patient participation (for example, by ensuring access to legal representation), and address the reputational and economic concerns of health care providers (for example, by clarifying practices governing National Practitioner Data Bank reporting and payers' financial recourse following medical error).
    Health Affairs 01/2014; 33(1):11-9. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0930 · 4.97 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 · 2.18 Impact Factor
Show more