CANDOR: The Antidote to Deny and Defend?

How will state medical boards handle cases involving disclosure and apology for medical errors?

Surveys were sent to 68 American state medical boards, including territories of the United States, inquiring how they handle—or will handle—cases involving disclosure and apology after medical errors. Surveys were not sent to specialty boards. Thirty-eight state medical boards ( n  =  38, 56%) responded to the survey, with 31 completing the survey (46% completion rate) and seven boards ( n  =  7) providing explanations for nonparticipation and other thoughts; 30 boards did not respond in any manner. Boards that completed the survey indicated that disclosure and apology and other positive post-event behavior by physicians are likely to be viewed favorably and disclosing physicians will not be easy targets for disciplinary measures, though boards also stressed they view each case on the merits and patient safety is their top priority. Recommendations are made for policy makers and other stakeholders.

Measuring the Uptake of Disclosure and Apology Content in the American Medical School Curriculum

Surveys were sent to deans and curriculum leaders of American medical schools regarding the teaching of disclosure and apology in the curriculum. One-hundred six medical schools responded (n = 106; 60% response rate) and results showed that disclosure and apology (also known as communication and resolution programs or CANDOR) is being taught in American medical schools but more work remains to develop consistent curriculum across all medical schools. The same survey (with slightly different wording) was sent to a commercial list of fourth year medical students; two hundred thirty students (n = 230, 17% response rate) representing 67 medical schools completed the survey. The students' data - though not statistically significant - provides a glimpse into students' feeling about this topic, including the desire to learn what happens after "sorry" and how cases can be resolved with disclosure, including the insurance, legal, and compensation aspects. Further avenues of research on this topic are suggested.

Honesty and Transparency, Indispensable to the Clinical Mission-Part II: How Communication and Resolution Programs Promote Patient Safety and Trust

When patients are harmed by health care, concerns fan out in all directions. Patients and families confront a sea of uncertainty, contending with injuries that drain them physically, emotionally, and financially. Health care professionals experience a powerful mix of emotions, but are seldom afforded the time to process what happened or the resources to relieve suffering and prevent harm. Honesty, transparency, and empathy are indispensable to a comprehensive approach that prioritizes patient and family-centered response to unintended harm, clinical improvement, and redemptive peer review. Part 2 introduces the second of three pillars for advancing the clinical mission: communication and transparency.

Review of disclosure and apology literature: Gaps and needs

A review of the literature related to the disclosure movement was conducted to find gaps and needs while identifying areas where needs are being met. There are several articles that address claims and other economic factors. Moreover, there are many papers that define barriers to disclosure with suggested workarounds. There is also a wealth of training content that teaches how to say "sorry." However, gaps and needs were identified. The "gap list" was developed with a focus on concepts that are novel or not mentioned in the literature as well as issues in the disclosure movement that would benefit from greater attention: (1) lack of research and disclosure training content for health care professionals beyond acute care; (2) messaging and disclosure programs, including the meaning of "apology"; (3) insufficient integration between disclosure programs and second victim support programs; (4) confidentiality clauses; (5) the National Practitioner Data Bank and state licensure boards being viewed as an impediment to disclosure; (6) understanding awareness of the disclosure movement by consumers, personal injury bar, and payors; (7) measuring what medical and nursing schools are teaching about disclosure; and (8) encouraging states to pass apology laws that support the development of disclosure programs.

A Modified Communication and Optimal Resolution Program for Intersystem Medical Error Discovery: Protocol for an Implementation Study

Background

Preventable medical errors represent a major public health problem. To prevent future errors, improve disclosure, and mitigate malpractice risks, organizations have adopted strategies for transparent communication and emphasized quality improvement through peer review. These principles are incorporated into the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) Toolkit, which facilitates (1) transparent communication, (2) error prevention, and (3) achieving optimal resolution with patients and families; however, how medical errors should be addressed when they are discovered between systems—intersystem medical error discovery (IMED)—remains unclear. Without mechanisms for disclosure and feedback on the part of the discovering provider, uncertainty remains as to the extent to which IMED is communicated with patients or responsible providers. Furthermore, known barriers to disclosure and reporting one’s own error may not be relevant or may be replaced by other unknown barriers when considering scenarios of IMED.

Objective

This study aims to develop and test implementation of a modified CANDOR process for application to IMED scenarios.

Methods

We plan a series of studies following an implementation framework. First, we plan a participatory, consensus-building stakeholder panel process to develop the modified CANDOR process. We will then conduct a robust preimplementation analysis to identify determinants of implementation of the modified process. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as a theoretical framework, we will assess organizational readiness by key informant interviews and individual-level behaviors by a survey. Findings from this analysis will inform the implementation toolkit that will be developed and pilot-tested at 2 cancer centers, sites where IMED is hypothesized to occur more frequently than other settings. We will measure 5 implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, reach, adoption, and feasibility) using a combination of key informant interviews and surveys over the pre- and postimplementation phases.

Results

This protocol was funded in August 2018 with support from the AHRQ. The University of Michigan Medical School Institutional Review Board has reviewed and approved the scope of activities described. As of April 2019, step 1 of aim 1 is underway, and aim 1 is projected to be completed by April 2020. Data collection is projected to begin in January 2020 for aim 2 and in August 2020 for aim 3.

Conclusions

Providing a communication and resolution strategy applicable to IMED scenarios will help address the current blind spot in the patient safety movement. This work will provide important insights into the potential utility of an implementation toolkit to improve transparent communication and optimal resolution of IMED scenarios. The natural progression of this work will be to test the toolkit more broadly, understand the feasibility and barriers of implementation on a broader scale, and pilot the implementation in new organizations.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/13396

Transparency and Disclosure

Disclosure of medical errors and adverse outcomes is expected by regulatory agencies and society as a whole. Disclosure should occur in a systematic way that ensures honesty and transparency regarding the care that has been provided. It is often appropriate to seek professional help from Clinical Risk Management to assist with disclosure of any serious safety event that resulted in harm. Disclosure of medical errors facilitates efforts to prevent recurrence of safety events.

Disclosure of Harmful Medical Error to Patients: A Review With Recommendations for Pathologists

Harmful error is an infrequent but serious challenge in the pathology laboratory. Regulatory bodies and advocacy groups have mandated and encouraged disclosure of error to patients. Many pathologists are interested in participating in disclosure of harmful error but are ill-equipped to do so. This review of the literature with recommendations examines the current state of the patient safety movement and error disclosure as it pertains to pathology and provides a practical and explicit guide for pathologists for who, when, and how to disclose harmful pathology error to patients. The authors provide a definition of harmful pathology error, and the rationale and principles behind effective disclosure are discussed. The changing culture of medicine and its effect on pathology is examined including the trend towards increasing transparency and patient engagement. Related topics are addressed including the management of expected adverse events, barriers to disclosure, and additional resources for the implementation of disclosure programs in pathology.

Progress at the Intersection of Patient Safety and Medical Liability: Insights from the AHRQ Patient Safety and Medical Liability Demonstration Program

OBJECTIVE

To identify lessons learned from the experience of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety and Medical Liability (PSML) Demonstration Program.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

On September 9, 2009, President Obama directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to authorize demonstration projects that put "patient safety first" with the intent of reducing preventable adverse outcomes and stemming liability costs. Seven demonstration projects received 3 years of funding from AHRQ in the summer of 2010, and the program formally came to a close in June 2015.

STUDY DESIGN

The seven grantees implemented complex, broad-ranging innovations addressing both patient safety and medical liability in "real-world" contexts. Some projects featured novel approaches, while others implemented adaptations of existing models. Each project was funded by AHRQ to collect data on the impact of its interventions. In addition, AHRQ funded a cross-cutting qualitative evaluation focused on lessons learned in implementing PSML interventions.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Site visits and follow-up interviews supplemented with material abstracted from formal project reports to AHRQ.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The PSML demonstration projects focused on three broad approaches: (1) improving communication around adverse events through disclosure and resolution programs; (2) preventing harm through implementation of clinical "best practices"; and (3) exploring alternative methods of settling claims. Although the demonstration contributed to accumulating evidence that these kinds of interventions can positively affect outcomes, there is also evidence to suggest that these interventions can be difficult to scale.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to producing at least preliminary positive outcomes, the demonstration also lends credence to the idea that targeted interventions that improve some aspect of patient safety or malpractice performance may also contribute more broadly to institutional culture and the alignment of all parties around reducing risk and preventing harm. However, more empirical work needs to be carried out to quantify the effect of such interventions.