What, who, when, where and how to inform patients after an adverse event: a qualitative study

Disclosing Adverse Events in Clinical Practice: The Delicate Act of Being Open

Practicing a "safe" disclosure of adverse events remains challenging for healthcare professionals. In addition, knowledge on how to deliver a disclosure is still limited. This review focuses on how disclosure communication may be practiced based on the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals. Empirical studies conducted between September 2008 and October 2019 were included from the databases PubMed, Web of Science and Psychinfo. After full text analysis and quality appraisal this scoping review included a total of 23 studies out of 2537 studies. As a first step, the needs of patients and the challenges of healthcare professionals with the practice of providing an effective disclosure were extracted from the empirical literature. Based on these findings, the review demonstrates that specific disclosure communication strategies on the level of interpersonal skills, organization, and supportive factors may facilitate healthcare professionals to provide optimal disclosure of adverse events. These may be relevant to provide patients with a tailored approach that accompanies their preferences for information and recognition. In conclusion, healthcare professionals may need training in interpersonal (verbal and nonverbal) communication skills. Furthermore, it is important to develop an open (organizational) culture that supports the communication of adverse events and disclosure as a standard practice.

The views and experiences of patients and health-care professionals on the disclosure of adverse events: A systematic review and qualitative meta-ethnographic synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the literature on the views and experiences of patients/family members and health-care professionals (HCPs) on the disclosure of adverse events.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative studies. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Qualitative data were analysed using a meta-ethnographic approach, comprising reciprocal syntheses of 'patient' and 'health-care professional' studies, combined to form a lines-of-argument synthesis embodying both perspectives.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the final syntheses. The results highlighted that there is a difference in attitudes and expectations between patients and HCPs regarding the disclosure conversation. Patients/family members expressed a need for information, the importance of sincere regret and a promise of improvement. However, HCPs faced several barriers, which hindered appropriate disclosure practices. These included difficulty of disclosure in a blame culture, avoidance of litigation, lack of skills on how to conduct disclosure and inconsistent guidance. A lines-of-argument synthesis is presented that identified both the key elements of an ideal disclosure desired by patients and the facilitators for HCPs, which can increase the likelihood of this taking place.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients/family members and HCPs both advocate disclosure, several barriers prevent HCPs from conducting disclosure effectively. Both groups have different needs for disclosure. To meet patients' requirements, training on disclosure for HCPs and the development of an open, transparent culture within organizations are potential areas for intervention.

Assessment of Doctors' Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Confidentiality in Hospital Care

The physician's duty of confidentiality is based on the observance of the patient's privacy and intimacy and on the importance of respecting both of these rights, thus creating a relationship of confidence and collaboration between doctor and patient. The main objective of this work consists of analyzing the aspects that are related to the confidentiality of patients' data with respect to the training, conduct and opinions of doctors from different Clinical Management Units of a third-level hospital via a questionnaire. The present study aimed to define the problem and determine whether the opinions of these professionals correspond to those observed in a previous work conducted at the same center. Of the 200 questionnaires that were collected, 62.5% were from consultants and the rest were from residents (37.5%) with an average of 14.4 ± 12.5 years in professional practice. The respondents noted habitual situations in which confidentiality was breached in the reference hospital (74%). The section on their attitudes and behaviors towards situations related to confidentiality showed a slightly lower average score than that of their medical knowledge; significant differences in these scores were observed between the consultants and residents as well as between the extreme age groups (≤ 30 vs. ≥ 51 years) and years of professional practice, thus more inadequate attitudes were consistently noted in younger doctors who had fewer years of experience. Finally, the respondents answered that the training of doctors in the aspects of healthcare law and ethics was the most important measure that the hospital could adopt regarding confidentiality practices.