Article

Interprofessional conflict and medical errors: results of a national multi-specialty survey of hospital residents in the US.

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, IL 60610, USA.
Journal of Interprofessional Care (Impact Factor: 1.48). 01/2009; 22(6):573-86. DOI: 10.1080/13561820802364740
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clear communication is considered the sine qua non of effective teamwork. Breakdowns in communication resulting from interprofessional conflict are believed to potentiate errors in the care of patients, although there is little supportive empirical evidence. In 1999, we surveyed a national, multi-specialty sample of 6,106 residents (64.2% response rate). Three questions inquired about "serious conflict" with another staff member. Residents were also asked whether they had made a "significant medical error" (SME) during their current year of training, and whether this resulted in an "adverse patient outcome" (APO). Just over 20% (n = 722) reported "serious conflict" with another staff member. Ten percent involved another resident, 8.3% supervisory faculty, and 8.9% nursing staff. Of the 2,813 residents reporting no conflict with other professional colleagues, 669, or 23.8%, recorded having made an SME, with 3.4% APOs. By contrast, the 523 residents who reported conflict with at least one other professional had 36.4% SMEs and 8.3% APOs. For the 187 reporting conflict with two or more other professionals, the SME rate was 51%, with 16% APOs. The empirical association between interprofessional conflict and medical errors is both alarming and intriguing, although the exact nature of this relationship cannot currently be determined from these data. Several theoretical constructs are advanced to assist our thinking about this complex issue.

1 Bookmark
 · 
111 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite many initiatives, advances in patient safety remain uneven in part because poor relationships among health professionals have not been addressed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether relationships between health professionals contributed to a patient safety climate, after implementation of an intervention to improve inter-professional collaboration.
    International Journal for Quality in Health Care 07/2014; 26(6). · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the perioperative period, several potential conflicts between anaesthetists/intensive care specialists and surgeons may exist. They are detrimental to the quality of patient care and to the well-being of the teams. They are a source of medical errors and contribute to burn-out. Patients can become the victims of such conflicts, which deserve ethical reflection. Their resolution through analysis and shared solutions is necessary. This article seeks to analyse these conflicts, taking into account their specificities and constraints. In order to understand this context, it is important to consider the specificities of each group involved and the records of such situations. Several factors can prevent these conflicts, first and foremost the patients themselves and the quality of the care that is provided. Medical deontology aims mainly at preventing and resolving these conflicts. Generally speaking, the quality approach which is increasingly applied in health care institutions (involving declarations of adverse events, morbidity/mortality reviews, benchmarking, analysis and improvement of practices, etc.) also contributes to the prevention and resolution of disagreements. The teaching of communication techniques that begins with the initial training, the evaluation of team behaviours (through simulation training for example), the respect of others’ constraints, particularly when it comes to learning, as well as transparency regarding conflicts of interests, are all additional elements of conflict prevention. Lastly, conflicts may at times be caused by deviant behaviours, which must be met with a clear and uncompromising collective and institutional approach. This article concludes by offering a standardised approach for conflict resolution.
    Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation 05/2014; · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the perioperative period, several potential conflicts between anaesthetists/intensive care specialists and surgeons may exist. They are detrimental to the quality of patient care and to the well-being of the teams. They are a source of medical errors and contribute to burn-out. Patients can become the victims of such conflicts, which deserve ethical reflection. Their resolution through analysis and shared solutions is necessary. This article seeks to analyse these conflicts, taking into account their specificities and constraints. In order to understand this context, it is important to consider the specificities of each group involved and the records of such situations. Several factors can prevent these conflicts, first and foremost the patients themselves and the quality of the care that is provided. Medical deontology aims mainly at preventing and resolving these conflicts. Generally speaking, the quality approach which is increasingly applied in health care institutions (involving declarations of adverse events, morbidity/mortality reviews, benchmarking, analysis and improvement of practices, etc.) also contributes to the prevention and resolution of disagreements. The teaching of communication techniques that begins with the initial training, the evaluation of team behaviours (through simulation training for example), the respect of others' constraints, particularly when it comes to learning, as well as transparency regarding conflicts of interests, are all additional elements of conflict prevention. Lastly, conflicts may at times be caused by deviant behaviours, which must be met with a clear and uncompromising collective and institutional approach. This article concludes by offering a standardised approach for conflict resolution.
    Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation 05/2014; · 0.77 Impact Factor