1
|
Gallagher TH, Kachalia A. Responding to Medical Errors - Implementing the Modern Ethical Paradigm. N Engl J Med 2024; 390:193-197. [PMID: 38226840 DOI: 10.1056/nejmp2309554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H Gallagher
- From the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and the Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington Medicine, Seattle (T.H.G.); and the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality and the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore (A.K.)
| | - Allen Kachalia
- From the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and the Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington Medicine, Seattle (T.H.G.); and the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality and the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore (A.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Olazo K, Gallagher TH, Sarkar U. Experiences and Perceptions of Healthcare Stakeholders in Disclosing Errors and Adverse Events to Historically Marginalized Patients. J Patient Saf 2023; 19:547-552. [PMID: 37921753 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000001173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We sought to assess the experiences and perceptions of healthcare stakeholders involved in the response to historically marginalized patients who have been harmed in healthcare. We investigated the challenges in disclosing errors and adverse events and the types of tools and resources that would better address the needs of historically marginalized patient populations. METHODS We conducted separate focus groups with two healthcare stakeholder groups: (1) frontline clinicians directly involved in the clinical care of historically marginalized patients and (2) risk and patient safety professionals involved in the hospital response to care breakdowns. We conducted an inductive analysis of the qualitative data to identify thematic clusters. RESULTS We interviewed 7 clinicians and 5 risk safety professionals, with a total sample size of 12 participants. Participants shared multilevel challenges in responding to historically marginalized patients after harm (system-, organizational-, and patient-level), such as fragmentation of care, lack of standardized protocols, and patient mistrust. Participants also identified their desired tools and resources for disclosure to meet the needs of historically marginalized patients, which included culturally appropriate toolkits, disclosure training, and the inclusion of multidisciplinary healthcare team members in the disclosure process. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that multiple interventions will be needed to achieve the goal of prompt disclosure of errors and adverse events across all populations engaged in health care. Future studies should investigate the perspectives of historically marginalized patients and their family members on how error and adverse event disclosure conversations should unfold.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Carole Hemmelgarn
- Institute for Quality and Safety, MedStar Health, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA
| | - Evan M Benjamin
- Ariadne Labs, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and Brighman and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
White AA, King AM, D'Addario AE, Brigham KB, Dintzis S, Fay EE, Gallagher TH, Mazor KM. Effects of Practicing With and Obtaining Crowdsourced Feedback From the Video-Based Communication Assessment App on Resident Physicians' Adverse Event Communication Skills: Pre-post Trial. JMIR Med Educ 2022; 8:e40758. [PMID: 36190751 PMCID: PMC9577713 DOI: 10.2196/40758] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2022] [Revised: 09/07/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND US residents require practice and feedback to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates and patient expectations for effective communication after harmful errors. Current instructional approaches rely heavily on lectures, rarely provide individualized feedback to residents about communication skills, and may not assure that residents acquire the skills desired by patients. The Video-based Communication Assessment (VCA) app is a novel tool for simulating communication scenarios for practice and obtaining crowdsourced assessments and feedback on physicians' communication skills. We previously established that crowdsourced laypeople can reliably assess residents' error disclosure skills with the VCA app. However, its efficacy for error disclosure training has not been tested. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of using VCA practice and feedback as a stand-alone intervention for the development of residents' error disclosure skills. METHODS We conducted a pre-post study in 2020 with pathology, obstetrics and gynecology, and internal medicine residents at an academic medical center in the United States. At baseline, residents each completed 2 specialty-specific VCA cases depicting medical errors. Audio responses were rated by at least 8 crowdsourced laypeople using 6 items on a 5-point scale. At 4 weeks, residents received numerical and written feedback derived from layperson ratings and then completed 2 additional cases. Residents were randomly assigned cases at baseline and after feedback assessments to avoid ordinal effects. Ratings were aggregated to create overall assessment scores for each resident at baseline and after feedback. Residents completed a survey of demographic characteristics. We used a 2×3 split-plot ANOVA to test the effects of time (pre-post) and specialty on communication ratings. RESULTS In total, 48 residents completed 2 cases at time 1, received a feedback report at 4 weeks, and completed 2 more cases. The mean ratings of residents' communication were higher at time 2 versus time 1 (3.75 vs 3.53; P<.001). Residents with prior error disclosure experience performed better at time 1 compared to those without such experience (ratings: mean 3.63 vs mean 3.46; P=.02). No differences in communication ratings based on specialty or years in training were detected. Residents' communication was rated higher for angry cases versus sad cases (mean 3.69 vs mean 3.58; P=.01). Less than half of all residents (27/62, 44%) reported prior experience with disclosing medical harm to patients; experience differed significantly among specialties (P<.001) and was lowest for pathology (1/17, 6%). CONCLUSIONS Residents at all training levels can potentially improve error disclosure skills with VCA practice and feedback. Error disclosure curricula should prepare residents for responding to various patient affects. Simulated error disclosure may particularly benefit trainees in diagnostic specialties, such as pathology, with infrequent real-life error disclosure practice opportunities. Future research should examine the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of VCA within a longitudinal error disclosure curriculum.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A White
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Ann M King
- National Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | | | - Karen Berg Brigham
- Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Suzanne Dintzis
- Department of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Emily E Fay
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Kathleen M Mazor
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
White AA, King AM, D'Addario AE, Brigham KB, Dintzis S, Fay EE, Gallagher TH, Mazor KM. Video-Based Communication Assessment of Physician Error Disclosure Skills by Crowdsourced Laypeople and Patient Advocates Who Experienced Medical Harm: Reliability Assessment With Generalizability Theory. JMIR Med Educ 2022; 8:e30988. [PMID: 35486423 PMCID: PMC9107044 DOI: 10.2196/30988] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2021] [Revised: 02/19/2022] [Accepted: 03/31/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Residents may benefit from simulated practice with personalized feedback to prepare for high-stakes disclosure conversations with patients after harmful errors and to meet American Council on Graduate Medical Education mandates. Ideally, feedback would come from patients who have experienced communication after medical harm, but medical researchers and leaders have found it difficult to reach this community, which has made this approach impractical at scale. The Video-Based Communication Assessment app is designed to engage crowdsourced laypeople to rate physician communication skills but has not been evaluated for use with medical harm scenarios. OBJECTIVE We aimed to compare the reliability of 2 assessment groups (crowdsourced laypeople and patient advocates) in rating physician error disclosure communication skills using the Video-Based Communication Assessment app. METHODS Internal medicine residents used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app; the case, which consisted of 3 sequential vignettes, depicted a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer. Panels of patient advocates who have experienced harmful medical error, either personally or through a family member, and crowdsourced laypeople used a 5-point scale to rate the residents' error disclosure communication skills (6 items) based on audiorecorded responses. Ratings were aggregated across items and vignettes to create a numerical communication score for each physician. We used analysis of variance, to compare stringency, and Pearson correlation between patient advocates and laypeople, to identify whether rank order would be preserved between groups. We used generalizability theory to examine the difference in assessment reliability between patient advocates and laypeople. RESULTS Internal medicine residents (n=20) used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app. All patient advocates (n=8) and 42 of 59 crowdsourced laypeople who had been recruited provided complete, high-quality ratings. Patient advocates rated communication more stringently than crowdsourced laypeople (patient advocates: mean 3.19, SD 0.55; laypeople: mean 3.55, SD 0.40; P<.001), but patient advocates' and crowdsourced laypeople's ratings of physicians were highly correlated (r=0.82, P<.001). Reliability for 8 raters and 6 vignettes was acceptable (patient advocates: G coefficient 0.82; crowdsourced laypeople: G coefficient 0.65). Decision studies estimated that 12 crowdsourced layperson raters and 9 vignettes would yield an acceptable G coefficient of 0.75. CONCLUSIONS Crowdsourced laypeople may represent a sustainable source of reliable assessments of physician error disclosure skills. For a simulated case involving delayed diagnosis of breast cancer, laypeople correctly identified high and low performers. However, at least 12 raters and 9 vignettes are required to ensure adequate reliability and future studies are warranted. Crowdsourced laypeople rate less stringently than raters who have experienced harm. Future research should examine the value of the Video-Based Communication Assessment app for formative assessment, summative assessment, and just-in-time coaching of error disclosure communication skills.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A White
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Ann M King
- National Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | | | - Karen Berg Brigham
- Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Suzanne Dintzis
- Department of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Emily E Fay
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
- Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Kathleen M Mazor
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
ABSTRACT Error disclosure is a high-stakes, emotionally charged interaction for patients and families as well as clinicians. A failed disclosure can result in emotional distress, reduced patient and family trust, litigation, and lost opportunities to learn from and prevent subsequent errors. However, many clinicians have little expertise in handling these challenging interactions and can inadvertently make a bad situation worse. Even those clinicians who have had formal disclosure training may have trouble remembering what they were taught when faced with the need to actually discuss an error with patients. Providing just-in-time coaching to clinicians is recommended by national standards. However, there is scant training material to guide error disclosure coaches. Therefore, we developed an "Ask-Tell-Ask" model and materials to guide the disclosure coaching process. The Ask-Tell-Ask model is well-suited to provide clinicians with targeted interactive teaching immediately before a disclosure without overwhelming them with lecture-style facts that they are unlikely to retain. Such teaching would ideally be provided by trained disclosure coaches, available for just-in-time support of clinicians throughout the disclosure process. The Ask-Tell-Ask model can also help risk managers, department heads, clinical managers, attending physicians, service chiefs, and others who assist clinicians with error disclosure. Here, we describe a comprehensive approach to coaching developed over years of coaching experience that incorporates the model, its rationale, step-by-step coaching strategies and guidance (including sample scripts), and organizational considerations regarding implementation of a coaching program to support patient-centered transparent communication after harmful events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jo Shapiro
- From the Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | | | - Sigall Bell
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mazor KM, Kamineni A, Roblin DW, Anau J, Robinson BE, Dunlap B, Firneno C, Gallagher TH. Encouraging Patients to Speak up About Problems in Cancer Care. J Patient Saf 2021; 17:e1278-e1284. [PMID: 29957680 PMCID: PMC6310121 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000510] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Many patients with cancer believe that something has gone wrong in their care but are reluctant to speak up. This pilot study sought to evaluate the impact of an intervention of active outreach to patients undergoing cancer treatment, wherein patients were encouraged to speak up if they had concerns about their care and to describe the types of concerns patients reported. METHODS Patients receiving cancer care at two sites were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention patients received a brochure encouraging them to speak up about any concerns and an outreach telephone call during which the interviewer explicitly asked about concerns. Participants in both groups received baseline and follow-up questionnaires assessing their perceptions of their care and whether anything had "gone wrong" and provided ratings of health care providers' communication and responsiveness. Qualitative content coding was used to categorize patient-reported concerns collected through the baseline and follow-up questionnaires (both groups) and during telephone outreach (intervention patients only). The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting a concern about their care. Communication and responsiveness ratings for intervention and control group patients were compared using t tests. RESULTS Of the 60 patients in the intervention group, 34 (56.7%) reported at least one problem or concern, compared with 16 (29.1%) of the 55 patients in the control group (P = 0.003). The telephone outreach in particular resulted in more than half of those reached reporting a new concern (55.3%). We detected no impact of the intervention on patients' ratings of communication or support for speaking up. CONCLUSIONS Patients in this study reported a variety of concerns in response to active outreach, demonstrating that active outreach to patients can provide healthcare teams and systems the opportunity to offer a real-time response to the patient, identify where system improvements are needed, and implement policies, procedures, or programs to prevent recurrences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathleen M Mazor
- From the Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Aruna Kamineni
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | | | - Jane Anau
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | | | - Benjamin Dunlap
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Cassandra Firneno
- From the Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients and families report experiencing a multitude of harms from medical errors resulting in physical, emotional, and financial hardships. Little is known about the duration and nature of these harms and the type of support needed to promote patient and family healing after such events. We sought to describe the long-term impacts (LTIs) reported by patients and family members who experienced harmful medical events 5 or more years ago. METHODS We performed a content analysis on 32 interviews originally conducted with 72 patients or family members about their views of the factors contributing to their self-reported harmful event. Interviews selected occurred 5 or more years after the harmful event and were grouped by time since event, 5 to 9 years (22 interviews) or 10 or more years (10 interviews) for analysis. We analyzed these interviews targeting spontaneous references of ongoing impacts experienced by the participants. RESULTS Participants collectively described the following four LTIs: psychological, social/behavioral, physical, and financial. Most cited psychological impacts with half-reporting ongoing anger and vivid memories. More than half reported ongoing physical impacts and one-third experienced ongoing financial impacts. Long-term social and behavioral impacts such as alterations in lifestyle, self-identity, and healthcare seeking behaviors were the most highly reported. CONCLUSIONS These patients and families experienced many profound LTIs after their harmful medical event. For some, these impacts evolved into secondary harms ongoing 10 years and more after the event. Our results draw attention to the persistent impacts patients and families may experience long after harmful events and the need for future research to understand and support affected patients and families.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Madelene J Ottosen
- From the University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School, Department of Family Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Nursing, Houston, Texas
| | - Emily W Sedlock
- From the University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School, Department of Family Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Nursing, Houston, Texas
| | - Aitebureme O Aigbe
- From the University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School, Department of Family Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Nursing, Houston, Texas
| | - Sigall K Bell
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Eric J Thomas
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Elwy AR, Maguire EM, Gallagher TH, Asch SM, Durfee JM, Martinello RA, Bokhour BG, Gifford AL, Taylor TJ, Wagner TH. Risk Communication After Health Care Exposures: An Experimental Vignette Survey With Patients. MDM Policy Pract 2021; 6:23814683211045659. [PMID: 34553068 PMCID: PMC8451260 DOI: 10.1177/23814683211045659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants (N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants’ perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants’ likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients’ behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants’ willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations’ disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Rani Elwy
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Elizabeth M Maguire
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Steven M Asch
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, California
| | - Janet M Durfee
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Patient Care Services, Washington, DC
| | - Richard A Martinello
- Yale-New Haven Hospital Departments of Medicine (Infectious Diseases) and Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Barbara G Bokhour
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Allen L Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Health Care System, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
| | - Thomas J Taylor
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, California
| | - Todd H Wagner
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, California
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mazor KM, King AM, Hoppe RB, D'Addario A, Musselman TG, Tallia AF, Gallagher TH. Using crowdsourced analog patients to provide feedback on physician communication skills. Patient Educ Couns 2021; 104:2297-2303. [PMID: 33715944 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2020] [Revised: 02/12/2021] [Accepted: 02/26/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Effective physician-patient communication is important, but physicians who are seeking to improve have few opportunities for practice or receive actionable feedback. The Video-based Communication Assessment (VCA) provides both. Using the VCA, physicians respond to communication dilemmas depicted in brief video vignettes; crowdsourced analog patients rate responses and offer comments. We characterized analog patients' comments and generated actionable recommendations for improving communication. METHODS Physicians and residents completed the VCA; analog patients rated responses and answered:"What would you want the provider to say in this situation?" We used qualitative analysis to identify themes. RESULTS Forty-three participants completed the VCA; 556 analog patients provided 1035 comments. We identified overarching themes (e.g., caring, empathy, respect) and generated actionable recommendations, incorporating analog patient quotes. CONCLUSION While analog patients' comments could be provided directly to users, conducting a thematic analysis and developing recommendations for physician-patient communication reduced the burden on users, and allowed for focused feedback. Research is needed into physicians' reactions to the recommendations and the impact on communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Physicians seeking to improve communication skills may benefit from practice and feedback. The VCA was designed to provide both, incorporating the patient voice on how best to communicate in clinical situations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathleen M Mazor
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, United States; University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States.
| | - Ann M King
- National Board of Medical Examiners, United States
| | - Ruth B Hoppe
- College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, United States
| | | | | | - Alfred F Tallia
- Department of Family Medicine, Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Slade IR, Beck SJ, Kramer CB, Symons RG, Cusumano M, Flum DR, Gallagher TH, Devine EB. Communication Training, Adverse Events, and Quality Measures: 2 Retrospective Database Analyses in Washington State Hospitals. J Patient Saf 2021; 17:e393-e400. [PMID: 28671907 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Washington State's HealthPact program was launched in 2011 as part of AHRQ's Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform initiative. HealthPact delivered interdisciplinary communication training to health-care professionals with the goal of enhancing safety. We conducted 2 exploratory, retrospective database analyses to investigate training impact on the frequency of adverse events (AEs) and select quality measures across 3 time frames: pretraining (2009-2011), transition (2012), and posttraining (2013). METHODS Using administrative data from Washington State's Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS) and clinical registry data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP), we compared proportions of AEs and quality measures between HealthPact (n = 4) and non-HealthPact (n = 93-CHARS; n = 48-SCOAP) participating hospitals. Risk ratios enabled comparisons between the 2 groups. Multivariable logistic regression enabled investigation of the association between training and the frequency of AEs. RESULTS Approximately 9.4% (CHARS) and 7.7% (SCOAP) of unique patients experienced 1 AE or greater. In CHARS, the odds of a patient experiencing an AE in a HealthPact hospital were initially (pretraining) higher than in a non-HealthPact hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.17), lower in transition (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83) and posttraining (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) periods. In SCOAP, ORs were consistently lower in HealthPact hospitals: pretraining (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95), transition (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81), and posttraining (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68). The proportion of at-risk patients that experienced each individual AE was low (<1%) throughout. Adherence to quality measures was high. CONCLUSIONS Interprofessional communication training is an area of intense activity nationwide. A broad-based training initiative may play a role in mitigating AEs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian R Slade
- From the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Loren DL, Lyerly AD, Lipira L, Ottosen M, Namey E, Benedetti T, Dunlap BS, Thomas EJ, Prouty C, Gallagher TH. Communication regarding adverse neonatal birth events: Experiences of parents and clinicians. Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/25160435211017749] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Objectives Communicating with parents about adverse birth outcomes is challenging. We sought to describe attitudes and experiences of parents and providers regarding communication about adverse newborn birth events. Methods From 2011–2012, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with parents who believed they had experienced an adverse birth-related neonatal outcome and focus groups with healthcare providers who have communicated with parents about adverse newborn birth events from three geographically diverse US academic medical centers. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results Parents and providers described unique communication challenges around adverse neonatal outcomes in six categories: 1) High expectations for a positive delivery experience and the view that birth is a life event, not a medical encounter; 2) Powerful emotions associated with birth, amplified when an adverse event occurs; 3) Rapid changes when expectations for a normal birth take a sudden negative turn; 4) Family involvement adding complexity to communication; 5) Multiple patients and providers complicating communication dynamics with inter-professional teams seeking to coordinate information and care; and, 6) Concerns about litigation surrounding the birth experience. Strategies to educate parents and enhance communication were identified by both parents and providers. Conclusion Both parents and providers experience – and may suffer as a result of – communication challenges following adverse birth events affecting the newborn. Training and resources for this care environment are needed to meet parental, extended family, and provider expectations for communication when these events occur.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Davia Liba Loren
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Anne Drapkin Lyerly
- Department of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Lauren Lipira
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Madelene Ottosen
- University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, UT-MH Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Emily Namey
- Behavioral, Epidemiological, and Clinical Sciences, FHI 360, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Thomas Benedetti
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Benjamin S Dunlap
- Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Eric J Thomas
- McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas at Houston – Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Carolyn Prouty
- Public Health and Health Sciences, The Evergreen State College, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine and Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Elwy AR, Maguire EM, McCullough M, George J, Bokhour BG, Durfee JM, Martinello RA, Wagner TH, Asch SM, Gifford AL, Gallagher TH, Walker Y, Sharpe VA, Geppert C, Holodniy M, West G. From implementation to sustainment: A large-scale adverse event disclosure support program generated through embedded research in the Veterans Health Administration. Healthc (Amst) 2021; 8 Suppl 1:100496. [PMID: 34175102 DOI: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2019] [Revised: 10/25/2020] [Accepted: 11/03/2020] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
In 2008, the Veterans Health Administration published a groundbreaking policy on disclosing large-scale adverse events to patients in order to promote transparent communication in cases where harm may not be obvious or even certain. Without embedded research, the evidence on whether or not implementation of this policy was generating more harm than good among Veteran patients was unknown. Through an embedded research-operations partnership, we conducted four research projects that led to the development of an evidence-based large-scale disclosure toolkit and disclosure support program, and its implementation across VA healthcare. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we identified specific activities corresponding to planning, engaging, executing, reflecting and evaluating phases in the process of implementation. These activities included planning with operational leaders to establish a shared research agenda; engaging with stakeholders to discuss early results, establishing buy-in of our efforts and receiving feedback; joining existing operational teams to execute the toolkit implementation; partnering with clinical operations to evaluate the toolkit during real-time disclosures; and redesigning the toolkit to meet stakeholders' needs. Critical lessons learned for implementation success included a need for stakeholder collaboration and engagement, an organizational culture involving a strong belief in evidence, a willingness to embed researchers in clinical operation activities, allowing for testing and evaluation of innovative practices, and researchers open to constructive feedback. At the conclusion of the research, VA operations worked with the researchers to continue to support efforts to spread, scale-up and sustain toolkit use across the VA healthcare system, with the final goal to establish long-term sustainability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Rani Elwy
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA; Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
| | - Elizabeth M Maguire
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA
| | - Megan McCullough
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA
| | - Judy George
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Jamaica Plain, MA, 02130, USA
| | - Barbara G Bokhour
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA
| | - Janet M Durfee
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Patient Care Services, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Richard A Martinello
- Departments of Medicine (Infectious Diseases) and Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA; Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale New Haven Health, Quality and Safety, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA
| | - Todd H Wagner
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA; Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, USA
| | - Steven M Asch
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA; Department of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, USA
| | - Allen L Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Jamaica Plain, MA, 02130, USA; Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA
| | - Yuri Walker
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Quality and Safety, Risk Management Service, Washington, DC. 20420, USA
| | - Virginia A Sharpe
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, National Center for Ethics in Healthcare, Office of Ethics Policy, Washington, DC. 20420, USA
| | - Cynthia Geppert
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, National Center for Ethics in Healthcare, Office of Ethics Policy, Washington, DC. 20420, USA
| | - Mark Holodniy
- Public Health Surveillance & Research Program and Public Health Reference Laboratory, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA; Department of Medicine (Infectious Diseases), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, USA
| | - Gavin West
- VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake, UT, 84148, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Affiliation(s)
- William M Sage
- School of Law and Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin
| | - Richard C Boothman
- Boothman Consulting Group, LLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
White AA, Sage WM, Mazor KM, Gallagher TH. Assessing and Supporting Late Career Practitioners: Four Key Questions. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2020; 46:591-595. [PMID: 32859507 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2020] [Revised: 07/06/2020] [Accepted: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
16
|
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H Gallagher
- From the Departments of Medicine (T.H.G., A.M.S.) and Bioethics (T.H.G.), University of Washington School of Medicine, and UW Medicine (A.M.S.) - both in Seattle
| | - Anneliese M Schleyer
- From the Departments of Medicine (T.H.G., A.M.S.) and Bioethics (T.H.G.), University of Washington School of Medicine, and UW Medicine (A.M.S.) - both in Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gallagher TH, Boothman RC, Schweitzer L, Benjamin EM. Making communication and resolution programmes mission critical in healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 29:875-878. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-010855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
|
18
|
Reisch LM, Prouty CD, Elmore JG, Gallagher TH. Communicating with patients about diagnostic errors in breast cancer care: Providers' attitudes, experiences, and advice. Patient Educ Couns 2020; 103:833-838. [PMID: 31813712 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2019] [Revised: 10/24/2019] [Accepted: 11/21/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To gain understanding of breast cancer care providers' attitudes regarding communicating with patients about diagnostic errors, to inform interventions to improve patient- provider discussions. METHODS Focus groups were held in three U.S. states involving 41 breast cancer care providers from a variety of specialties. Discussions focused on providers' experiences with potential errors in breast cancer diagnosis, communication with patients following three hypothetical diagnostic vignettes, and suggestions for how and why diagnostic errors in breast cancer care should be communicated. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS Providers were more willing to inform breast cancer patients of a diagnostic error when they felt it would be helpful, when they felt responsible for the error, when they were less concerned about litigation, and when the patient asked directly. CONCLUSIONS Breast cancer care providers experience several challenges when considering whether to inform a patient about diagnostic errors. A better understanding of patients' preferences for open communication, combined with customized tools and training, could increase clinicians' comfort with these difficult discussions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Providers gave suggestions to facilitate discussions about diagnostic errors when these events occur, including themes of education, honesty, and optimism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa M Reisch
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Joann G Elmore
- David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Fisher KA, Smith KM, Gallagher TH, Huang JC, Mazor KM. We Want to Know-A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Comprehensive Program Designed to Detect and Address Patient-Reported Breakdowns in Care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2020; 46:261-269. [PMID: 32192921 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2019] [Revised: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/24/2020] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients have important insights into care experiences, including breakdowns, but are often reluctant to speak up. The We Want to Know (WWTK) program was designed to make it easy for hospitalized patients to speak up about breakdowns in care and receive a response. METHODS The WWTK program was implemented from June 2014 through May 2017 at a large, community hospital in Baltimore. Core program features include (1) multiple channels for patients to report breakdowns, (2) campaign materials to increase patient awareness of the WWTK program, and (3) a specialist to facilitate resolution of breakdowns. This program was evaluated using mixed methods to assess the frequency and type of reported breakdowns, patient awareness of the program, and stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS WWTK specialists interviewed 4,676 patients; 822 (17.6%) reported a breakdown in care. Of these, 313 (38.1%) had not spoken with anyone at the hospital about the breakdown, and 547 (66.5%) described associated harm. There were also 55 patient-initiated reports to WWTK; 41 (74.5%) of these reported a care breakdown. Patients had not spoken with anyone at the hospital in 12 (29.3%) patient-initiated cases; 38 (92.7%) described associated harm. Hospital stakeholders found the level of detail and timeliness of reports to be helpful. CONCLUSION Active outreach to hospitalized patients detects substantially more breakdowns in care than patient-initiated reporting. Both approaches identify breakdowns that are consequential to patients and provide opportunities to respond to individual patients.
Collapse
|
20
|
Fisher KA, Gallagher TH, Smith KM, Zhou Y, Crawford S, Amroze A, Mazor KM. Communicating with patients about breakdowns in care: a national randomised vignette-based survey. BMJ Qual Saf 2019; 29:313-319. [PMID: 31723017 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009712] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2019] [Revised: 08/02/2019] [Accepted: 10/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to speak up and responding when they do are needed. OBJECTIVE To identify factors which influence speaking up, and to examine the impact of apology when problems occur. DESIGN Randomised experiment using a vignette-based questionnaire describing 3 care breakdowns (slow response to call bell, rude aide, unanswered questions). The role of the person inquiring about concerns (doctor, nurse, patient care specialist), extent of the prompt (invitation to patient to share concerns) and level of apology were varied. SETTING National online survey. PARTICIPANTS 1188 adults aged ≥35 years were sampled from an online panel representative of the entire US population, created and maintained by GfK, an international survey research organisation; 65.5% response rate. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Affective responses to care breakdowns, intent to speak up, willingness to recommend the hospital. RESULTS Twice as many participants receiving an in-depth prompt about care breakdowns would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no prompt (18.4% vs 8.8% respectively (p=0.0067)). Almost three times as many participants receiving a full apology would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no apology (34.1% vs 13.6% respectively ((p<0.0001)). Feeling upset was a strong determinant of greater intent to speak up, but a substantial number of upset participants would not 'definitely' speak up. A more extensive prompt did not result in greater likelihood of speaking up. The inquirer's role influenced speaking up for two of the three breakdowns (rudeness and slow response). CONCLUSIONS Asking about possible care breakdowns in detail, and offering a full apology when breakdowns are reported substantially increases patients' willingness to recommend the hospital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly A Fisher
- Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Kelly M Smith
- MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, Columbia, Maryland, USA
| | - Yanhua Zhou
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Sybil Crawford
- Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Azraa Amroze
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kathleen M Mazor
- Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Michaelson MD, Nandagopal L, Gore JL, George S, Alva A, Haas N, Harrison MR, Plimack ER, Sosman J, Agarwal N, Bhayani S, Choueiri TK, Costello BA, Derweesh IH, Gallagher TH, Hancock SL, Kyriakopoulos C, LaGrange C, Lam ET, Lau C, Lewis B, Manley B, McCreery B, McDonald A, Mortazavi A, Pierorazio PM, Ponsky L, Redman BG, Somer B, Wile G, Dwyer MA, Hammond LJ, Zuccarino-Catania G. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17:1278-1285. [PMID: 31693980 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 157] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Eric Jonasch
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - John L Gore
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
| | | | - Ajjai Alva
- University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center
| | - Naomi Haas
- Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania
| | | | | | - Jeffrey Sosman
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | - Sam Bhayani
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Amir Mortazavi
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | - Lee Ponsky
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | - Bradley Somer
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Brown SD, Bruno MA, Shyu JY, Eisenberg R, Abujudeh H, Norbash A, Gallagher TH. Error Disclosure and Apology in Radiology: The Case for Further Dialogue. Radiology 2019; 293:30-35. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
23
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Academic faculty who devote most of their time to clinical work often struggle to engage in meaningful scholarly work. They may be disadvantaged by limited research training and limited time. Simply providing senior mentors and biostatistical support has limited effectiveness. OBJECTIVE We aimed to increase productivity in scholarly work of hospitalists and internal medicine physicians by integrating an Academic Research Coach into a robust faculty development program. DESIGN This was a pre-post quality improvement evaluation. SETTING This was conducted at the University of Washington in faculty across three academic-affiliated hospitals and 10 academic-affiliated clinics. PARTICIPANTS Participants were hospitalists and internists on faculty in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington. INTERVENTION The coach was a 0.50 full time equivalent health services researcher with strong research methods, project implementation, and interpersonal skills. The coach consulted on research, quality improvement, and other scholarship. MEASUREMENTS We assessed the number of faculty supported, types of services provided, and numbers of grants, papers, and abstracts submitted and accepted. RESULTS The coach consulted with 49 general internal medicine faculty including 30 hospitalists who conducted 63 projects. The coach supported 13 publications, 11 abstracts, four grant submissions, and seven manuscript reviews. Forty-eight faculty in other departments benefited as co-authors. CONCLUSION Employing a dedicated health services researcher as part of a faculty development program is an effective way to engage clinically oriented faculty in meaningful scholarship. Key aspects of the program included an accessible and knowledgeable coach and an ongoing marketing strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christy M McKinney
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Craniofacial Medicine and Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Somnath Mookherjee
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Stephan D Fihn
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Dhawale T, Zech J, Greene SM, Roblin DW, Brigham KB, Gallagher TH, Mazor KM. We need to talk: Provider conversations with peers and patients about a medical error. Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management 2019. [DOI: 10.1177/2516043519863578] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tejaswini Dhawale
- Center for Scholarship in Patient Care, Quality and Safety, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | - Jennifer Zech
- Mailman School of Public Health, ICAP at Columbia University, New York, USA
| | | | | | - Karen Berg Brigham
- Center for Scholarship in Patient Care, Quality and Safety, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Center for Scholarship in Patient Care, Quality and Safety, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | - Kathleen M Mazor
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Sabbatini AK, Gallahue F, Newson J, White S, Gallagher TH. Capturing Emergency Department Discharge Quality With the Care Transitions Measure: A Pilot Study. Acad Emerg Med 2019; 26:605-609. [PMID: 30256486 DOI: 10.1111/acem.13623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2018] [Revised: 09/05/2018] [Accepted: 09/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent attention has been given to developing measures to capture the quality of ED transitions of care. We examined the utility of a patient-reported measure of transitional care, the Care Transitions Measure-3 (CTM-3), in the ED setting and its association with outcomes of care after ED discharge. METHODS A telephone survey was conducted of a convenience sample of patients 14 days after discharge from two emergency departments (EDs) in an academic health system. Patients responded to three statements using a four-point agreement scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree): 1) "The hospital staff took my preferences and those of my family or caregiver into account when deciding what my health care needs would be"; 2) " When I left the ER, I had a good understanding of the things I was responsible for in managing my health"; and 3) "When I left the hospital, I clearly understood the purpose for taking each of my medications." Patients were also queried about outcomes after ED discharge that are known to be related to ED care transitions including medication adherence, completion of recommended follow-up, and return visits to the ED. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between the CTM-3 score (on a 100-point scale) and outcomes of interest. RESULTS Among 1,832 patients called, 576 were reached by phone, and 410 consented and completed our survey, representing a 22.4% response rate of patients we attempted to call. A 10-point increase in the CTM-3 score (better care experiences) was associated with a 12% decrease in the odds of having an ED return visit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-1.00) and a 45% increase in the odds of taking prescribed medications as recommended (AOR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.12-1.87). There was no association between CTM-3 score and completion of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The CTM-3 is associated with outcomes of care after an ED visit, including ED return visits and medication adherence, and may have utility as a patient-reported measure of ED transitions of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber K Sabbatini
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.,Center for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Fiona Gallahue
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Joshua Newson
- School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.,Center for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Korngiebel DM, Zech JM, Chappelle A, Burke W, Carline JD, Gallagher TH, Fullerton SM. Practice Implications of Expanded Genetic Testing in Oncology. Cancer Invest 2019; 37:39-45. [PMID: 30676118 DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2018.1564926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Genetic test use in oncology is growing, yet providers' experiences with evolving testing norms and their implications for patient care remain under-explored. In interviews with oncologists and cancer genetics professionals, 22 key informants described the increasing importance of germline results for therapeutic decision-making, preference for ordering tests directly rather than referring, and rapid adoption of cancer gene panels for testing. Implications for informed consent, result interpretation, and patient management were identified. These results suggest concerns raised by the transition of genetic test delivery from cancer genetics professionals to oncologists that must be addressed in practice guidelines and provider training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diane M Korngiebel
- a Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | - Jennifer M Zech
- b ICAP, Mailman School of Public Health , Columbia University , New York , NY , USA
| | | | - Wylie Burke
- d Bioethics and Humanities , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | - Jan D Carline
- a Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- e Medicine and Bioethics and Humanities , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Gallagher TH, Mello MM, Sage WM, Bell SK, McDonald TB, Thomas EJ. Can Communication-And-Resolution Programs Achieve Their Potential? Five Key Questions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37:1845-1852. [DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0727] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H. Gallagher
- Thomas H. Gallagher is a professor in the Department of Medicine and in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle
| | - Michelle M. Mello
- Michelle M. Mello is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and a professor of health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, in California
| | - William M. Sage
- William M. Sage is the James R. Dougherty Chair for Faculty Excellence, School of Law, and a professor of surgery and perioperative care, Dell Medical School, both at the University of Texas at Austin
| | - Sigall K. Bell
- Sigall K. Bell is an associate professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Timothy B. McDonald
- Timothy B. McDonald is director of the Center for Open and Honest Communication, MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, in Washington, D.C
| | - Eric J. Thomas
- Eric J. Thomas is a professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abstract
Medical educators are expected to teach quality improvement (QI) skills alongside traditional clinical skills such as physical examination and bedside manner. Educational resources for intensive training in QI have proliferated. However, many physicians lack the time or resources to undergo this training, and may struggle with teaching these skills to their learners. In response, we offer twelve tips to help physicians teach basic QI concepts in the clinical environment. By following these tips physicians will be able to engage their learners interest in QI and provide experiential learning that makes a lasting impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maya Narayanan
- a Department of Medicine , Division of General Internal Medicine University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | - Andrew A White
- a Department of Medicine , Division of General Internal Medicine University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- a Department of Medicine , Division of General Internal Medicine University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| | - Somnath Mookherjee
- a Department of Medicine , Division of General Internal Medicine University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Fisher KA, Smith KM, Gallagher TH, Huang JC, Borton JC, Mazor KM. We want to know: patient comfort speaking up about breakdowns in care and patient experience. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 28:190-197. [PMID: 30269059 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2018] [Revised: 07/25/2018] [Accepted: 08/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess patient comfort speaking up about problems during hospitalisation and to identify patients at increased risk of having a problem and not feeling comfortable speaking up. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SETTING Eight hospitals in Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS Patients hospitalised at any one of eight hospitals who completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey postdischarge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Response to the question 'How often did you feel comfortable speaking up if you had any problems in your care?' grouped as: (1) no problems during hospitalisation, (2) always felt comfortable speaking up and (3) usually/sometimes/never felt comfortable speaking up. RESULTS Of 10 212 patients who provided valid responses, 4958 (48.6%) indicated they had experienced a problem during hospitalisation. Of these, 1514 (30.5%) did not always feel comfortable speaking up. Predictors of having a problem during hospitalisation included age, health status and education level. Patients who were older, reported worse overall and mental health, were admitted via the Emergency Department and did not speak English at home were less likely to always feel comfortable speaking up. Patients who were not always comfortable speaking up provided lower ratings of nurse communication (47.8 vs 80.4; p<0.01), physician communication (57.2 vs 82.6; p<0.01) and overall hospital ratings (7.1 vs 8.7; p<0.01). They were significantly less likely to definitely recommend the hospital (36.7% vs 71.7 %; p<0.01) than patients who were always comfortable speaking up. CONCLUSIONS Patients frequently experience problems in care during hospitalisation and many do not feel comfortable speaking up. Creating conditions for patients to be comfortable speaking up may result in service recovery opportunities and improved patient experience. Such efforts should consider the impact of health literacy and mental health on patient engagement in patient-safety activities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly A Fisher
- Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA .,Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kelly M Smith
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.,System Quality and Patient Safety, MedStar Health, Columbia, MD, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jim C Huang
- Department of Biostatistics and Biomedical Informatics, MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.,Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Georgetown-Howard Universities, Washington, D.C., USA
| | | | - Kathleen M Mazor
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
White AA, Sage WM, Osinska PH, Salgaonkar MJ, Gallagher TH. Patient safety and the ageing physician: a qualitative study of key stakeholder attitudes and experiences. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 28:468-475. [PMID: 30237318 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008276] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2018] [Revised: 07/20/2018] [Accepted: 08/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Unprecedented numbers of physicians are practicing past age 65. Unlike other safety-conscious industries, such as aviation, medicine lacks robust systems to ensure late-career physician (LCP) competence while promoting career longevity. OBJECTIVE To describe the attitudes of key stakeholders about the oversight of LCPs and principles that might shape policy development. DESIGN Thematic content analysis of interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS 40 representatives of stakeholder groups including state medical board leaders, institutional chief medical officers, senior physicians (>65 years old), patient advocates (patients or family members in advocacy roles), nurses and junior physicians. Participants represented a balanced sample from all US regions, surgical and non-surgical specialties, and both academic and non-academic institutions. RESULTS Stakeholders describe lax professional self-regulation of LCPs and believe this represents an important unsolved challenge. Patient safety and attention to physician well-being emerged as key organising principles for policy development. Stakeholders believe that healthcare institutions rather than state or certifying boards should lead implementation of policies related to LCPs, yet expressed concerns about resistance by physicians and the ability of institutions to address politically complex medical staff challenges. Respondents recommended a coaching and professional development framework, with environmental changes, to maximise safety and career longevity of physicians as they age. CONCLUSIONS Key stakeholders express a desire for wider adoption of LCP standards, but foresee significant culture change and practical challenges ahead. Participants recommended that institutions lead this work, with support from regulatory stakeholders that endorse standards and create frameworks for policy adoption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A White
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - William M Sage
- Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.,School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
| | - Paulina H Osinska
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Monica J Salgaonkar
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Departments of Medicine and Bioethics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
A general consensus has been reached in health care organizations that the disclosure of medical errors can be a very powerful way to improve patients and physicians well-being and serves as a core component to high quality health care. This practice strongly encourages transparent communication with patients after medical errors or unanticipated outcomes. However, many countries, such as Brazil, do not have a culture of disclosing harmful errors to patients or standards emphasizing the importance of disclosing, taking responsibility, apologizing, and discussing the prevention of recurrences. Medical error is not discussed or approached during medical school. The stigma of error has a strong connection with value judgments, and emotional support for physicians does not exist. This paper suggests that open communication with the patient is essential. Guidance about error disclosure from health care organizations would be helpful for quality and patient safety and for health care professionals in countries like Brazil.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vitor S Mendonca
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington - Medicine Center for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, 1959 NE Pacific St. BB1240, Box 356526, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington - Medicine Center for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, 1959 NE Pacific St. BB1240, Box 356526, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
McDonald TB, Van Niel M, Gocke H, Tarnow D, Hatlie M, Gallagher TH. Implementing communication and resolution programs: Lessons learned from the first 200 hospitals. Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management 2018. [DOI: 10.1177/2516043518763451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
The Communication and Optimal Resolution toolkit contains implementation guidance for communication and resolution programs that are comprehensive, principled, and systematic approaches to the prevention and response to patient harm that includes the open and honest communication of inappropriate care to patients and families that is coupled with financial compensation and the commitment to future prevention. The toolkit was released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in May 2016. The authors describe their experiences with implementing communication and resolution programs with all of the components of Communication and Optimal Resolution and other communication and resolution program best practices in over 200 hospitals. Lessons learned include the ability to predict and discover actual barriers to full implementation and strategies for overcoming them are shared. Future considerations for further dissemination and spread are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy B McDonald
- MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, Center for Open and Honest Communication, Washington, USA
- Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Beazley Institute of Health Law and Policy, Chicago, USA
| | - Melinda Van Niel
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Health Care Quality, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA
| | - Heather Gocke
- BETA Healthcare Group, Risk Management and Patient Safety, Glendale, USA
| | - Deanna Tarnow
- BETA Healthcare Group, Risk Management and Patient Safety, Alamo, USA
| | - Martin Hatlie
- MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, Center for Open and Honest Communication, Washington, USA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, USA
- Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, Seattle, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
Importance The issue of the aging physician and when to cease practice has been controversial for many years. There are reports of prominent physicians who practiced after becoming dangerous in old age, but the profession has not demonstrated the ability to prevent this. A mandatory retirement age could be discriminatory and take many competent physicians out of practice and risk a physician shortage. An increasing body of evidence regarding the relationship between physicians' age and performance has led organizations, such as the American College of Surgeons, to revisit this challenge. Observations Since 1975, the number of practicing physicians older than 65 years in the United States has increased by more than 374%, and in 2015, 23% of practicing physicians were 65 years or older. Research shows that between ages 40 and 75 years, the mean cognitive ability declines by more than 20%, but there is significant variability from one person to another, indicating that while some older physicians are profoundly impaired, others retain their ability and skills. There are age-based requirements for periodic testing and/or retirement for many professions including pilots, judges, air traffic controllers, Federal Bureau of Investigation employees, and firefighters. While there are not similar requirements for physicians, a few hospitals have introduced mandatory age-based evaluations. Conclusions As physicians age, a required cognitive evaluation combined with a confidential, anonymous feedback evaluation by peers and coworkers regarding wellness and competence would be beneficial both to physicians and their patients. While it is unlikely that this will become a national standard soon, individual health care organizations could develop policies similar to those present at a few US institutions. In addition, large professional organizations should identify a range of acceptable policies to address the aging physician while leaving institutions flexibility to customize the approach. Absent robust professional initiatives in this area, regulators and legislators may impose more draconian measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.,Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Elwy AR, Itani KMF, Bokhour BG, Mueller NM, Glickman ME, Zhao S, Rosen AK, Lynge D, Perkal M, Brotschi EA, Sanchez VM, Gallagher TH. Surgeons' Disclosures of Clinical Adverse Events. JAMA Surg 2017; 151:1015-1021. [PMID: 27438083 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Surgeons are frequently faced with clinical adverse events owing to the nature of their specialty, yet not all surgeons disclose these events to patients. To sustain open disclosure programs, it is essential to understand how surgeons are disclosing adverse events, factors that are associated with reporting such events, and the effect of disclosure on surgeons. Objective To quantitatively assess surgeons' reports of disclosure of adverse events and aspects of their experiences with the disclosure process. Design, Setting, and Participants An observational study was conducted from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, involving a 21-item baseline questionnaire administered to 67 of 75 surgeons (89%) representing 12 specialties at 3 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Sixty-two surveys of their communication about adverse events and experiences with disclosing such events were completed by 35 of these 67 surgeons (52%). Data were analyzed using mixed linear random-effects and logistic regression models. Main Outcomes and Measures Self-reports of disclosure assessed by 8 items from guidelines and pilot research, surgeons' perceptions of the adverse event, reported personal effects from disclosure, and baseline attitudes toward disclosure. Results Most of the surgeons completing the web-based surveys (41 responses from men and 21 responses from women) used 5 of the 8 recommended disclosure items: explained why the event happened (55 of 60 surveys [92%]), expressed regret for what happened (52 of 60 [87%]), expressed concern for the patient's welfare (57 of 60 [95%]), disclosed the adverse event within 24 hours (58 of 60 [97%]), and discussed steps taken to treat any subsequent problems (59 of 60 [98%]). Fewer surgeons apologized to patients (33 of 60 [55%]), discussed whether the event was preventable (33 of 60 [55%]), or how recurrences could be prevented (19 of 59 [32%]). Surgeons who were less likely to have discussed prevention (33 of 60 [55%]), those who stated the event was very or extremely serious (40 of 61 surveys [66%]), or reported very or somewhat difficult experiences discussing the event (16 of 61 [26%]) were more likely to have been negatively affected by the event. Surgeons with more negative attitudes about disclosure at baseline reported more anxiety about patients' surgical outcomes or events following disclosure (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.16-2.06). Conclusions and Relevance Surgeons who reported they were less likely to discuss preventability of the adverse event, or who reported difficult communication experiences, were more negatively affected by disclosure than others. Quality improvement efforts focused on recognizing the association between disclosure and surgeons' well-being may help sustain open disclosure policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Rani Elwy
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts2Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts3Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kamal M F Itani
- Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts5Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Barbara G Bokhour
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts3Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nora M Mueller
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts6Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park
| | - Mark E Glickman
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts7Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
| | - Shibei Zhao
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Amy K Rosen
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts5Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Dana Lynge
- Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System, Seattle, Washington9Department of Surgery, University of Washington Healthcare System, Seattle
| | - Melissa Perkal
- Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven11Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Erica A Brotschi
- Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts5Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Vivian M Sanchez
- Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts5Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Bioethics, University of Washington Medical School, Seattle13Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical School, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, Bhayani S, Bro WP, Chang SS, Choueiri TK, Costello BA, Derweesh IH, Fishman M, Gallagher TH, Gore JL, Hancock SL, Harrison MR, Kim W, Kyriakopoulos C, LaGrange C, Lam ET, Lau C, Michaelson MD, Olencki T, Pierorazio PM, Plimack ER, Redman BG, Shuch B, Somer B, Sonpavde G, Sosman J, Dwyer M, Kumar R. Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15:804-834. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 360] [Impact Index Per Article: 51.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
36
|
Dintzis SM, Clennon EK, Prouty CD, Reich LM, Elmore JG, Gallagher TH. Pathologists' Perspectives on Disclosing Harmful Pathology Error. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017; 141:841-845. [PMID: 28362155 DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0136-oa] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT - Medical errors are unfortunately common. The US Institute of Medicine proposed guidelines for mitigating and disclosing errors. Implementing these recommendations in pathology will require a better understanding of how errors occur in pathology, the relationship between pathologists and treating clinicians in reducing error, and pathologists' experiences with and attitudes toward disclosure of medical error. OBJECTIVE - To understand pathologists' attitudes toward disclosing pathology error to treating clinicians and patients. DESIGN - We conducted 5 structured focus groups in Washington State and Missouri with 45 pathologists in academic and community practice. Participants were questioned about pathology errors, how clinicians respond to pathology errors, and what roles pathologists should play in error disclosure to patients. RESULTS - These pathologists believe that neither treating physicians nor patients understand the subtleties and limitations of pathologic diagnoses, which complicates discussions about pathology errors. Pathologists' lack of confidence in communication skills and fear of being misrepresented or misunderstood are major barriers to their participation in disclosure discussions. Pathologists see potential for their future involvement in disclosing error to patients, but at present advocate reliance on treating clinicians to disclose pathology errors to patients. Most group members believed that going forward pathologists should offer to participate more actively in error disclosure to patients. CONCLUSIONS - Pathologists lack confidence in error disclosure communication skills with both treating physicians and patients. Improved communication between pathologists and treating physicians could enhance transparency and promote disclosure of pathology errors. Consensus guidelines for best practices in pathology error disclosure may be useful.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Thomas H Gallagher
- From the Departments of Pathology (Dr Dintzis), Medicine (Ms Clennon and Drs Prouty, Reich, Elmore, and Gallagher), and Epidemiology (Dr Elmore), University of Washington, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Abstract
National guidelines call for health care organizations to provide around-the-clock coaching for medical error disclosure. However, frontline clinicians may not always seek risk managers for coaching. As part of a demonstration project designed to improve patient safety and reduce malpractice liability, we trained multidisciplinary disclosure coaches at 8 health care organizations in Washington State. The training was highly rated by participants, although not all emerged confident in their coaching skill. This multisite intervention can serve as a model for other organizations looking to enhance existing disclosure capabilities. Success likely requires cultural change and repeated practice opportunities for coaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A White
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Douglas M Brock
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Patricia I McCotter
- Formerly of Physicians Insurance, A Mutual Company/Esperix, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
White AA, Brock DM, McCotter PI, Hofeldt R, Edrees HH, Wu AW, Shannon S, Gallagher TH. Risk managers' descriptions of programs to support second victims after adverse events. J Healthc Risk Manag 2016; 34:30-40. [PMID: 25891288 DOI: 10.1002/jhrm.21169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Guidelines call for healthcare organizations to provide emotional support for clinicians involved in adverse events, but little is known about how these organizations seek to meet this need. We surveyed US members of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM) about the presence, features, and perceived efficacy of their organization's provider support program. The majority reported that their organization had a support program, but features varied widely and there are substantial opportunities to improve services. Provider support programs should enhance referral mechanisms and peer support, critically appraise the role of employee assistance programs, and demonstrate their value to institutional leaders.
Collapse
|
39
|
Maguire EM, Bokhour BG, Wagner TH, Asch SM, Gifford AL, Gallagher TH, Durfee JM, Martinello RA, Elwy AR. Evaluating the implementation of a national disclosure policy for large-scale adverse events in an integrated health care system: identification of gaps and successes. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16:648. [PMID: 27835983 PMCID: PMC5106838 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1903-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2016] [Accepted: 11/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Many healthcare organizations have developed disclosure policies for large-scale adverse events, including the Veterans Health Administration (VA). This study evaluated VA’s national large-scale disclosure policy and identifies gaps and successes in its implementation. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with leaders, hospital employees, and patients at nine sites to elicit their perceptions of recent large-scale adverse events notifications and the national disclosure policy. Data were coded using the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results We conducted 97 interviews. Insights included how to handle the communication of large-scale disclosures through multiple levels of a large healthcare organization and manage ongoing communications about the event with employees. Of the 5 CFIR constructs and 26 sub-constructs assessed, seven were prominent in interviews. Leaders and employees specifically mentioned key problem areas involving 1) networks and communications during disclosure, 2) organizational culture, 3) engagement of external change agents during disclosure, and 4) a need for reflecting on and evaluating the policy implementation and disclosure itself. Patients shared 5) preferences for personal outreach by phone in place of the current use of certified letters. All interviewees discussed 6) issues with execution and 7) costs of the disclosure. Conclusions CFIR analysis reveals key problem areas that need to be addresses during disclosure, including: timely communication patterns throughout the organization, establishing a supportive culture prior to implementation, using patient-approved, effective communications strategies during disclosures; providing follow-up support for employees and patients, and sharing lessons learned. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1903-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth M Maguire
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. .,Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, 200 Springs Road (Mailstop152), Bedford, 01730, MA, USA.
| | - Barbara G Bokhour
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.,Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Todd H Wagner
- Health Economics Resource Center, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.,Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.,Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Steven M Asch
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.,Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Allen L Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.,Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Janet M Durfee
- Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - A Rani Elwy
- Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 S. Huntington Ave, Jamaica Plain, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Mello MM, Armstrong SJ, Greenberg Y, McCotter PI, Gallagher TH. Challenges of Implementing a Communication-and-Resolution Program Where Multiple Organizations Must Cooperate. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 3:2550-2568. [PMID: 27807858 DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To implement a communication-and-resolution program (CRP) in a setting in which liability insurers and health care facilities must collaborate to resolve incidents involving a facility and separately insured clinicians. STUDY SETTING Six hospitals and clinics and a liability insurer in Washington State. STUDY DESIGN Sites designed and implemented CRPs and contributed information about cases and operational challenges over 20 months. Data were qualitatively analyzed. DATA COLLECTION METHODS Data from interviews with personnel responsible for CRP implementation were triangulated with data on program cases collected by sites and notes recorded during meetings with sites and among project team members. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Sites experienced small victories in resolving particular cases and streamlining some working relationships, but they were unable to successfully implement a collaborative CRP. Barriers included the insurer's distance from the point of care, passive rather than active support from top leaders, coordinating across departments and organizations, workload, nonparticipation by some physicians, and overcoming distrust. CONCLUSIONS Operating CRPs where multiple organizations must collaborate can be highly challenging. Success likely requires several preconditions, including preexisting trust among organizations, active leadership engagement, physicians' commitment to participate, mechanisms for quickly transmitting information to insurers, tolerance for missteps, and clear protocols for joint investigations and resolutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah J Armstrong
- University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA.,University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA
| | - Yelena Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | | | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Gallagher TH, Etchegaray JM, Bergstedt B, Chappelle AM, Ottosen MJ, Sedlock EW, Thomas EJ. Improving Communication and Resolution Following Adverse Events Using a Patient-Created Simulation Exercise. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 3:2537-2549. [PMID: 27790708 DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The response to adverse events can lack patient-centeredness, perhaps because the involved institutions and other stakeholders misunderstand what patients and families go through after care breakdowns. STUDY SETTING Washington and Texas. STUDY DESIGN The HealthPact Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) created and led a five-stage simulation exercise to help stakeholders understand what patients experience following an adverse event. The half-day exercise was presented twice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Lessons learned related to the development and conduct of the exercise were synthesized from planning notes, attendee evaluations, and exercise discussion notes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS One hundred ninety-four individuals attended (86 Washington and 108 Texas). Take-homes from these exercises included the fact that the response to adverse events can be complex, siloed, and uncoordinated. Participating in this simulation exercise led stakeholders and patient advocates to express interest in continued collaboration. CONCLUSIONS A PFAC-designed simulation can help stakeholders understand patient and family experiences following adverse events and potentially improve their response to these events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, UW Medicine Center for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | | - Madelene J Ottosen
- McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, Houston, TX
| | - Emily W Sedlock
- McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, Houston, TX
| | - Eric J Thomas
- McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Etchegaray JM, Ottosen MJ, Aigbe A, Sedlock E, Sage WM, Bell SK, Gallagher TH, Thomas EJ. Patients as Partners in Learning from Unexpected Events. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 3:2600-2614. [PMID: 27778321 DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Patient safety experts believe that patients/family members should be involved in adverse event review. However, it is unclear how aware patients/family members are about the causes of adverse events they experienced. OBJECTIVE To determine whether patients/family members interviewed could identify at least one contributing factor for the event they experienced. Secondary objectives included understanding the way patients/family members became aware of adverse events, the types of contributing factors patients/family members identified for different types of adverse events, and recommendations provided by patients/family members to address the contributing factors. DESIGN We interviewed patients/family members using semistructured interviews to understand their perceptions about why these adverse events occurred. The adverse events occurred between 1991 and 2014. SETTING Participants described adverse events that occurred in various types of health care organizations (i.e., hospitals, ambulatory facilities/clinics, and dental clinics). PARTICIPANTS We interviewed 72 patients and family members who each described a unique adverse event. Eligibility requirements were that patients/family members spoke English or Spanish and were aware of an adverse event that happened to them or a loved one. INTERVENTION(S) FOR CLINICAL TRIALS OR EXPOSURE(S) FOR OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S) The main outcome was determining whether patients/family members could identify at least one contributing factor they perceived as related to the adverse event they described. RESULTS Each participant identified at least one contributing factor and on average identified 3.67 contributing factors for their event. The most frequently mentioned contributing factors were Staff Qualifications/Knowledge (79 percent), Safety Policies/Procedures (74 percent), and Communication (64 percent). Participants knew about the contributing factors from personal observation only (32 percent), personal reasoning (11 percent), personal research (7 percent), record review (either their own medical records or reports they received in their own investigation; 6 percent), and being told by a physician (5 percent). Finally, patients/family members were able to provide recommendations that address each of the nine contributing factors we examined. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patients/family members identified contributing factors related to their adverse event. Given that these contributing factors might not be known to health care organizations because most participants stated that they were not involved in the analysis process, opportunities for organizational learning from patients are potentially being missed. Health care organizations should interview patients/family about the event that harmed them to help ensure a full understanding of the causes of the event.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Madelene J Ottosen
- UT-MH Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School, Department of Family Health, School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX
| | - Aitebureme Aigbe
- University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX
| | - Emily Sedlock
- The University of Texas-Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, McGovern Medical School, UT Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX
| | - William M Sage
- School of Law and Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
| | - Sigall K Bell
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.,Institute of Professionalism and Ethical Practice, Boston Children's Hospital BIDMC, Boston, MA
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Bioethics and Humanities University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Eric J Thomas
- McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas-Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Gallagher TH. COMMUNICATION AND RESOLUTION PROGRAMS: 3 THINGS EVERY IOWA PHYSICIAN SHOULD KNOW. Iowa Med 2016; 106:16-17. [PMID: 30157321] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
|
44
|
Gallagher TH, Farrell ML, Karson H, Armstrong SJ, Maldon JT, Mello MM, Cullen BF. Collaboration with Regulators to Support Quality and Accountability Following Medical Errors: The Communication and Resolution Program Certification Pilot. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 3:2569-2582. [PMID: 27601424 DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12557] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Communication and resolution programs (CRPs) involve institutions responding to adverse events using transparency with patients, event analysis, recurrence prevention, and compensation. Collaboration with regulators around CRPs could enhance health care quality. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Health care institutions, liability insurers, and the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC, board of medicine) in Washington State. STUDY DESIGN MQAC has collaborated with the Foundation for Health Care Quality (FHCQ) on the CRP Certification pilot. A panel of physicians, risk managers, and patient advocates at FHCQ will review cases for use of the CRP key elements. Cases meeting this standard will be "CRP Certified." If MQAC determines that the CRP enhanced patient safety comparable or better than board action, the Commission may close the case. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Developing this process identified the following issues: (1) protecting information submitted for CRP Certification; (2) determining what information the Commission needs to assess whether additional investigation is warranted; (3) preserving the Commission's responsibility to protect the public while working with health care organizations; and (4) addressing concerns that CRP Certification not shield incompetent providers. CONCLUSIONS The CRP Certification program is a promising example of collaboration among institutions, insurers, and regulators to promote patient-centered accountability and learning following adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Hannah Karson
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | - Sarah J Armstrong
- University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA.,University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Michelle M Mello
- Stanford Law School and Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Bruce F Cullen
- University of Washington School of Medicine (emeritus), Redmond, WA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
|
46
|
Edrees H, Brock DM, Wu AW, McCotter PI, Hofeldt R, Shannon SE, Gallagher TH, White AA. The experiences of risk managers in providing emotional support for health care workers after adverse events. J Healthc Risk Manag 2016; 35:14-21. [PMID: 27088771 DOI: 10.1002/jhrm.21219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Risk managers often meet with health care workers who are emotionally traumatized following adverse events. We surveyed members of the American Society for Health care Risk Management (ASHRM) about their training, experience, competence, and comfort with providing emotional support to health care workers. Although risk managers reported feeling comfortable and competent in providing support, nearly all respondents prefer to receive additional training. Risk managers who were comfortable listening to and supporting health care workers were more likely to report prior training. Health care organizations implementing second victim support programs should not rely solely on risk managers to provide support, rather engage and train interested risk managers and provide them with opportunities to practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanan Edrees
- Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Douglas M Brock
- Department of Family Medicine and MEDEX Northwest, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Albert W Wu
- Professor of Health Policy and Management and Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Patricia I McCotter
- Patient Safety Innovations and Provider Support, Physicians Insurance A Mutual Company/Experix, Seattle, Washington
| | - Ron Hofeldt
- Physician Affairs, Physicians Insurance A Mutual Company/Experix, Seattle, Washington
| | - Sarah E Shannon
- Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine and Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle
| | - Andrew A White
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Mazor K, Roblin DW, Greene SM, Fouayzi H, Gallagher TH. Primary care physicians’ willingness to disclose oncology errors involving multiple providers to patients. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 25:787-95. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2015] [Accepted: 10/13/2015] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|
48
|
Abstract
The disclosure of adverse events to patients, including those caused by medical errors, is a critical part of patient-centered healthcare and a fundamental component of patient safety and quality improvement. Disclosure benefits patients, providers, and healthcare institutions. However, the act of disclosure can be difficult for physicians. Surgeons struggle with disclosure in unique ways compared with other specialties, and disclosure in the surgical setting has specific challenges. The frequency of surgical adverse events along with a dysfunctional tort system, the team structure of surgical staff, and obstacles created inadvertently by existing surgical patient safety initiatives may contribute to an environment not conducive to disclosure. Fortunately, there are multiple strategies to address these barriers. Participation in communication and resolution programs, integration of Just Culture principles, surgical team disclosure planning, refinement of informed consent and morbidity and mortality processes, surgery-specific professional standards, and understanding the complexities of disclosing other clinicians' errors all have the potential to help surgeons provide patients with complete, satisfactory disclosures. Improvement in the regularity and quality of disclosures after surgical adverse events and errors will be key as the field of patient safety continues to advance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren E Lipira
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA,
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M, Lee SSJ, Kelley M, Alessi S, Korngiebel D, James C, Kuwana E, Gallagher TH, Diekema D, Capron AM, Joffe S, Wilfond BS. Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices: A Cross-sectional Survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162:690-6. [PMID: 25868119 PMCID: PMC4776759 DOI: 10.7326/m15-0166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants. OBJECTIVE To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014. SETTING Web-based questionnaire. PATIENTS 1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290). MEASUREMENTS Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices. RESULTS 97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%). LIMITATION Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population. CONCLUSION Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mildred K. Cho
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - David Magnus
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Melissa Constantine
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Maureen Kelley
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Stephanie Alessi
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Diane Korngiebel
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Cyan James
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ellen Kuwana
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Thomas H. Gallagher
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Douglas Diekema
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Alexander M. Capron
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Steven Joffe
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Benjamin S. Wilfond
- From Stanford University, Stanford, California; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H Gallagher
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Kathleen M Mazor
- Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|