Patient Perceptions of Mistakes in Ambulatory Care

Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicin, University of California-San Francisco, USA.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.33). 09/2010; 170(16):1480-7. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.288
Source: PubMed


Little information exists about current patient perceptions of medical mistakes in ambulatory care within a diverse population. We aimed to learn about the perceptions of medical mistakes, what factors were associated with perceived mistakes, and whether the participants changed physicians because of these perceived mistakes.
We conducted a cross-sectional survey at 7 primary care practices in North Carolina of English- or Spanish-speaking adults, aged 18 years and older, who saw a health care professional during 2008. Main outcome measures were 4 questions about patient perceptions of medical mistakes in the ambulatory care setting, including (1) overall experience with a medical mistake; type of mistake, such as a (2) diagnostic mistake or (3) treatment mistake, and its associated harm; and (4) effect of this mistake on changing physicians.
Of 1697 participants, 265 (15.6%) responded that a physician had made a mistake, 227 (13.4%) reported a wrong diagnosis, 212 (12.5%) reported a wrong treatment, and 239 (14.1%) reported having changed physicians because of a mistake. Participants perceived mistakes and harm in both diagnostic care and medical treatment. Patients with chronic back pain, higher educational attainment, and poor physical health were at increased odds of perceiving mistakes, whereas African American patients were less likely to perceive mistakes.
Patients perceived mistakes in their diagnostic and treatment care in the ambulatory setting. These perceptions had a concrete effect on the physician-patient relationship, often leading patients to seek another health care professional.

Download full-text


Available from: C Madeline Mitchell, Feb 04, 2014
  • Source
    • "In all but two of the articles[26,27]patients were asked to report adverse events caused by doctors. In four articles, specific kinds of adverse events were analysed: errors in diagnosis and treatment[18,22], dispensing and intervention[22], diagnosis[19]and medication[16]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Patient safety gained widespread public attention in the last 20 years. However, most patient safety research relied upon professionals’ exceptions and was realised especially in the hospital sector. Gradually patients’ attention has been focused on safety campaigns in inpatient care. We aimed to better assess patients’ perceptions in primary and ambulatory care. Methods A systematic review was conducted by use of database searches with additional reference and hand searching. The search strategy implied MeSH-terms relating to adverse events, incident reporting and outpatient care. Relevant articles were selected by applying defined eligibility criteria. Studies exclusively based on hospital data as well as the professionals’ point of view were excluded. Results We included 19 studies. Patients were able to identify events that were traditionally recognised by the medical community as technical medical aspects (e.g. errors in diagnosis). An important field of patient participation in prevention of adverse events was proposed in the medication process. Most reported events however could be described as service quality incidents. Communication problems were shown to have implications on the occurrence of technical medical aspects and patients’ satisfaction of their care. Further, unsatisfied patients were more likely to recognize adverse events. Conclusion Patients’ perception of patient safety in primary and ambulatorycare broadened the previous focus on technical medical aspects. Especially communication factors played an important role in the occurrence and consequence of adverse events and patients’ satisfaction. Future research should concentrate on developing possible ways to integrate patients’ views and participation in ensuring safety in outpatient care.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2016 · BMC Family Practice
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence suggests that patients can report a variety of adverse events (AEs) not captured by traditional methods such as a chart review. Little is known, however, about whether patient reports are useful for measuring patient safety. To examine the degree to which physician reviewers agreed that patient reports of "negative effects" constituted AEs, and to identify questionnaire items that affected reviewers' judgments. We surveyed patients discharged from Massachusetts hospitals in 2003 to elicit information about negative effects associated with hospitalization. Physician reviewers judged whether patient-reported negative effects represented AEs, and classified the severity of the event. Likelihood ratios were calculated to assess whether patient responses to questionnaire items affected reviewers' judgments. Of the 2582 patients surveyed, 753 patients reported 1170 negative effects, and 71.2% of these effects were classified as AEs by physician reviewers. Negative effects most likely to be classified as AEs involved newly prescribed medications and changes to previously prescribed medications. Additional information elicited from follow-up survey questions modestly affected reviewers' classification of serious AEs. Negative effects reported by women, younger patients, those reporting better health status, and those not admitted through the emergency department were more likely to be classified as AEs. Many patients were able to identify care-related AEs. Patient responses to questions about the sequelae of the events provided limited additional information for physicians to use in gauging the presence and severity of the event. Patient reports complement other incident-detection methods by providing information that is credible and unavailable from other sources.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2011 · Medical care
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An analysis of paid malpractice claims may provide insight into the prevalence and seriousness of adverse medical events in the outpatient setting. To report and compare the number, magnitude, and type of paid malpractice claims for events in inpatient and outpatient settings. Retrospective analysis of malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians in outpatient and inpatient settings using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 2005 through 2009. We evaluated trends in claims paid by setting, characteristics of paid claims, and factors associated with payment amount. Number of paid claims, mean and median payment amounts, types of errors, and outcomes of errors. In 2009, there were 10,739 malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians. Of these paid claims, 4910 (47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.6%-48.5%) were for events in the inpatient setting, 4448 (43.1%; 95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) were for events in the outpatient setting, and 966 (9.4%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.9%) involved events in both settings. The proportion of payments for events in the outpatient setting increased by a small but statistically significant amount, from 41.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-42.6%) in 2005 to 43.1% (95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) in 2009 (P < .001 for trend across years). In the outpatient setting, the most common reason for a paid claim was diagnostic (45.9%; 95% CI, 44.4%-47.4%), whereas in the inpatient setting the most common reason was surgical (34.1%; 95% CI, 32.8%-35.4%). Major injury and death were the 2 most common outcomes in both settings. Mean payment amount for events in the inpatient setting was significantly higher than in the outpatient setting ($362,965; 95% CI, $348,192-$377,738 vs $290,111; 95% CI, $278,289-$301,934; P < .001). In 2009, the number of paid malpractice claims reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank for events in the outpatient setting was similar to the number in the inpatient setting.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2011 · JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association
Show more