Error reporting and disclosure systems: views from hospital leaders.
ABSTRACT The Institute of Medicine has recommended establishing mandatory error reporting systems for hospitals and other health settings.
To examine the opinions and experiences of hospital leaders with state reporting systems.
Survey of chief executive and chief operating officers (CEOs/COOs) from randomly selected hospitals in 2 states with mandatory reporting and public disclosure, 2 states with mandatory reporting without public disclosure, and 2 states without mandatory systems in 2002-2003.
Perceptions of the effects of mandatory systems on error reporting, likelihood of lawsuits, and overall patient safety; attitudes regarding release of incident reports to the public; and likelihood of reporting incidents to the state or to the affected patient based on hypothetical clinical vignettes that varied the type and severity of patient injury.
Responses were received from 203 of 320 hospitals (response rate = 63%). Most CEOs/COOs thought that a mandatory, nonconfidential system would discourage reporting of patient safety incidents to their hospital's own internal reporting system (69%) and encourage lawsuits (79%) while having no effect or a negative effect on patient safety (73%). More than 80% felt that the names of both the hospital and the involved professionals should be kept confidential, although respondents from states with mandatory public disclosure systems were more willing than respondents from the other states to release the hospital name (22% vs 4%-6%, P = .005). Based on the vignettes, more than 90% of hospital leaders said their hospital would report incidents involving serious injury to the state, but far fewer would report moderate or minor injuries, even when the incident was of sufficient consequence that they would tell the affected patient or family.
Most hospital leaders expressed substantial concerns about the impact of mandatory, nonconfidential reporting systems on hospital internal reporting, lawsuits, and overall patient safety. While hospital leaders generally favor disclosure of patient safety incidents to involved patients, fewer would disclose incidents involving moderate or minor injury to state reporting systems.
SourceAvailable from: Frank H Stephen
Technical Report: A study of medical negligence claiming in Scotland[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The establishment of the No-Fault Compensation Review Working Group was announced on the 1st June 2009, with the remit to consider the potential benefits of implementing a ‘no-fault’ scheme for medical negligence claims in Scotland alongside the existing arrangements. This report follows from research commissioned in order to inform the Working Group’s review.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To analyze and compare malpractice claims rates between male and female ophthalmologists and test the hypothesis that claims rates are equal between the two sexes. A retrospective, cohort study review was made of all claims reported to the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company from January 1990 through December 2008 in which an expense (including indemnity and/or legal defense costs) was paid or reserved. A total of 2,251 claims were examined. Frequency (claims per physician) and severity (indemnity payment, associated expenses and reserves per claim) were analyzed for both male and female ophthalmologists. Frequency and severity data were further stratified by allegation, type of treatment, and injury severity category. Men were sued 54% more often than females over the period studied (P<.001). Women had lower claims frequencies across all allegations and within the treatment areas of cataract, cornea, and retinal procedures (P<.7). Men had more claims associated with severe injury, including permanent major injury and death (P<.001). The average amount paid in indemnity and expenses was 7% higher for claims against women ($115,303 compared to $107,354 against men). Nearly 20 years of closed claim data reveal male ophthalmologists are significantly more likely than women to have reported malpractice activity. Claims against men were associated with more severe injury to the patient but were slightly less costly overall compared to claims against women. Further study is necessary to understand the reasons underlying gender disparities in malpractice claims rates and whether the observed past differences are predictive of future results.Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 07/2014; 112:38-49.