Lauris C. Kaldjian

Reporting Medical Errors to Improve Patient Safety: A Survey of Physicians in Teaching Hospitals

BACKGROUND Collecting data on medical errors is essential for improving patient safety, but factors affecting error reporting by physicians are poorly understood. METHODS Survey of faculty and resident physicians in the midwest, mid-Atlantic, and northeast regions of the United States to investigate reporting of actual errors, likelihood of reporting hypothetical errors, attitudes toward reporting errors, and demographic factors. RESULTS Responses were received from 338 participants (response rate, 74.0%). Most respondents agreed that reporting errors improves the quality of care for future patients (84.3%) and would likely report a hypothetical error resulting in minor (73%) or major (92%) harm to a patient. However, only 17.8% of respondents had reported an actual minor error (resulting in prolonged treatment or discomfort), and only 3.8% had reported an actual major error (resulting in disability or death). Moreover, 16.9% acknowledged not reporting an actual minor error, and 3.8% acknowledged not reporting an actual major error. Only 54.8% of respondents knew how to report errors, and only 39.5% knew what kind of errors to report. Multivariate analyses of answers to hypothetical vignettes showed that willingness to report was positively associated with believing that reporting improves the quality of care, knowing how to report errors, believing in forgiveness, and being a faculty physician (vs a resident). CONCLUSION Most faculty and resident physicians are inclined to report harm-causing hypothetical errors, but only a minority have actually reported an error.

Disclosing Medical Errors to Patients: Attitudes and Practices of Physicians and Trainees

BACKGROUNDDisclosing errors to patients is an important part of patient care, but the prevalence of disclosure, and factors affecting it, are poorly understood.OBJECTIVETo survey physicians and trainees about their practices and attitudes regarding error disclosure to patients.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTSSurvey of faculty physicians, resident physicians, and medical students in Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions of the United States.MEASUREMENTSActual error disclosure; hypothetical error disclosure; attitudes toward disclosure; demographic factors.RESULTSResponses were received from 538 participants (response rate = 77%). Almost all faculty and residents responded that they would disclose a hypothetical error resulting in minor (97%) or major (93%) harm to a patient. However, only 41% of faculty and residents had disclosed an actual minor error (resulting in prolonged treatment or discomfort), and only 5% had disclosed an actual major error (resulting in disability or death). Moreover, 19% acknowledged not disclosing an actual minor error and 4% acknowledged not disclosing an actual major error. Experience with malpractice litigation was not associated with less actual or hypothetical error disclosure. Faculty were more likely than residents and students to disclose a hypothetical error and less concerned about possible negative consequences of disclosure. Several attitudes were associated with greater likelihood of hypothetical disclosure, including the belief that disclosure is right even if it comes at a significant personal cost.CONCLUSIONSThere appears to be a gap between physicians’ attitudes and practices regarding error disclosure. Willingness to disclose errors was associated with higher training level and a variety of patient-centered attitudes, and it was not lessened by previous exposure to malpractice litigation.

An empirically derived taxonomy of factors affecting physicians' willingness to disclose medical errors

AbstractBACKGROUND: Physician disclosure of medical errors to institutions, patients, and colleagues is important for patient safety, patient care, and professional education. However, the variables that may facilitate or impede disclosure are diverse and lack conceptual organization. OBJECTIVE: To develop an empirically derived, comprehensive taxonomy of factors that affects voluntary disclosure of errors by physicians. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study using qualitative data collection (structured literature search and exploratory focus groups), quantitative data transformation (sorting and hierarchical cluster analysis), and validation procedures (confirmatory focus groups and expert review). RESULTS: Full-text review of 316 articles identified 91 impeding or facilitating factors affecting physicians’ willingness to disclose errors. Exploratory focus groups identified an additional 27 factors. Sorting and hierarchical cluster analysis organized factors into 8 domains. Confirmatory focus groups and expert review relocated 6 factors, removed 2 factors, and modified 4 domain names. The final taxonomy contained 4 domains of facilitating factors (responsibility to patient, responsibility to self, responsibility to profession, responsibility to community), and 4 domains of impeding factors (attitudinal barriers, uncertainties, helplessness, fears and anxieties). CONCLUSIONS: A taxonomy of facilitating and impeding factors provides a conceptual framework for a complex field of variables that affects physicians’ willingness to disclose errors to institutions, patients, and colleagues. This taxonomy can be used to guide the design of studies to measure the impact of different factors on disclosure, to assist in the design of error-reporting systems, and to inform educational interventions to promote the disclosure of errors to patients.

A Clinician's Approach to Clinical Ethical Reasoning

We offer a systematic strategy that situates clinical ethical reasoning within the paradigm of clinical reasoning. The trajectory of this strategy parallels clinical reasoning: a plain statement of the initial problem, careful gathering of data, a differential diagnostic assessment, and articulation and confirmation of a justified plan. This approach pays special attention to the goals of medical care, because so much depends on whether or not physician and patient share the same goals. This approach also addresses the heterogeneity of clinical problems that at first appear ethical and acknowledges the ethical pluralism that pervades clinical ethics.

Facilitating and Impeding Factors for Physicians’ Error Disclosure: A Structured Literature Review

BACKGROUND It is important for physicians to disclose medical errors to institutions (for patient safety), to colleagues (for professional learning), and to patients (as part of direct patient care), but no comprehensive review of factors that may facilitate or impede disclosure has been undertaken. METHODS A MEDLINE search was conducted of English-language articles published from 1975-2004, with review of bibliographies. A total of 5,509 articles were reviewed by title, 881 articles were retrieved for full text review, and 475 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Article content was assessed by identifying factors that facilitate or impede disclosure and classifying each articles primary goal of disclosure. RESULTS Thirty-five factors believed to facilitate disclosure were identified (for example, accountability, honesty, restitution), as were 41 factors believed to impede it (for example, professional repercussions, legal liability, blame). The three most common goals of disclosure were to improve patient safety, enhance learning, and inform patients. Facilitating factors were more commonly cited when the goal of disclosure was to inform patients. DISCUSSION A wide range of factors are capable of facilitating or impeding the disclosure of medical errors. Innovations to enhance error disclosure should address both sides of the equation: impeding factors should be removed and facilitating factors should be promoted.

Code status discussions and goals of care among hospitalised adults

Background and objective: Code status discussions may fail to address patients’ treatment-related goals and their knowledge of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study aimed to investigate patients’ resuscitation preferences, knowledge of CPR and goals of care. Design, setting, patients and measurements: 135 adults were interviewed within 48 h of admission to a general medical service in an academic medical centre, querying code status preferences, knowledge about CPR and its outcome probabilities and goals of care. Medical records were reviewed for clinical information and code status documentation. Results: 41 (30.4%) patients had discussed CPR with their doctor, 116 (85.9%) patients preferred full code status and 11 (8.1%) patients expressed code status preferences different from the code status documented in their medical record. When queried about seven possible goals of care, patients affirmed an average of 4.9 goals; their single most important goals were broadly distributed, ranging from being cured (n = 36; 26.7%) to being comfortable (n = 8; 5.9%). Patients’ mean estimate of survival to discharge after CPR was 60.4%. Most patients believed it was helpful to discuss goals of care (n = 95; 70.4%) and the chances of surviving inhospital CPR (n = 112; 83.0%). Some patients expressed a desire to change their code status after receiving information about survival following inhospital CPR (n = 11; 8.1%) or after discussing goals of care (n = 2; 1.5%). Conclusions: Doctors need to address patients’ knowledge about CPR and take steps to avoid discrepancies between treatment orders and patients’ preferences. Addressing CPR outcome probabilities and goals of care during code status discussions may improve patients’ knowledge and influence their preferences.

Internists’ attitudes towards terminal sedation in end of life care

Objective: To describe the frequency of support for terminal sedation among internists, determine whether support for terminal sedation is accompanied by support for physician assisted suicide (PAS), and explore characteristics of internists who support terminal sedation but not assisted suicide. Design: A statewide, anonymous postal survey. Setting: Connecticut, USA. Participants: 677 Connecticut members of the American College of Physicians. Measurements: Attitudes toward terminal sedation and assisted suicide; experience providing primary care to terminally ill patients; demographic and religious characteristics. Results: 78% of respondents believed that if a terminally ill patient has intractable pain despite aggressive analgesia, it is ethically appropriate to provide terminal sedation (diminish consciousness to halt the experience of pain). Of those who favoured terminal sedation, 38% also agreed that PAS is ethically appropriate in some circumstances. Along a three point spectrum of aggressiveness in end of life care, the plurality of respondents (47%) were in the middle, agreeing with terminal sedation but not with PAS. Compared with respondents who were less aggressive or more aggressive, physicians in this middle group were more likely to report having more experience providing primary care to terminally ill patients (p = 0.02) and attending religious services more frequently (p<0.001). Conclusions: Support for terminal sedation was widespread in this population of physicians, and most who agreed with terminal sedation did not support PAS. Most internists who support aggressive palliation appear likely to draw an ethical line between terminal sedation and assisted suicide.

Do faculty and resident physicians discuss their medical errors

Background: Discussions about medical errors facilitate professional learning for physicians and may provide emotional support after an error, but little is known about physicians’ attitudes and practices regarding error discussions with colleagues. Methods: Survey of faculty and resident physicians in generalist specialties in Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the US to investigate attitudes and practices regarding error discussions, likelihood of discussing hypothetical errors, experience role-modelling error discussions and demographic variables. Results: Responses were received from 338 participants (response rate  = 74%). In all, 73% of respondents indicated they usually discuss their mistakes with colleagues, 70% believed discussing mistakes strengthens professional relationships and 89% knew at least one colleague who would be a supportive listener. Motivations for error discussions included wanting to learn whether a colleague would have made the same decision (91%), wanting colleagues to learn from the mistake (80%) and wanting to receive support (79%). Given hypothetical scenarios, most respondents indicated they would likely discuss an error resulting in no harm (77%), minor harm (87%) or major harm (94%). Fifty-seven percent of physicians had tried to serve as a role model by discussing an error and role-modelling was more likely among those who had previously observed an error discussion (OR 4.17, CI 2.34 to 7.42). Conclusions: Most generalist physicians in teaching hospitals report that they usually discuss their errors with colleagues, and more than half have tried to role-model discussions. However, a significant number of these physicians report that they do not usually discuss their errors and some do not know colleagues who would be supportive listeners.

Goals of Care among Hospitalized Patients: A Validation Study

Our objective was to validate 6 literature-derived goals of care by analyzing open-ended and closed-ended responses about goals of care from a previous study of hospitalized patients. Eight clinicians categorized patients’ open-ended articulations of their goals of care using a literature-derived framework and then compared those categorizations to patients’ own closed-ended selections of their most important goal of care. Clinicians successfully categorized patients’ open-ended responses using the literature-derived framework 83.5% of the time, and their categorizations matched patients’ closed-ended most important goal of care 87.8% of the time. Goals that did not fit within the literature-derived framework all pertained to the goal of understanding a patient’s diagnosis or prognosis; this seventh potential goal can be added to the literature-derived framework of 6 goals of care.

Dementia, Goals of Care, and Personhood: A Study of Surrogate Decision Makers’ Beliefs and Values:

Surrogate decision makers for persons with advanced dementia play a key role in making decisions about medical treatments for their loved ones. We conducted in-depth interviews of 20 surrogates to examine their goals of care preferences and beliefs about personhood. All surrogates believed the goal of comfort was important, and 30.0% believed that curing physical problems was important. Significant proportions of surrogates acknowledged dementia-related changes in patients’ ability to reason, communicate, and relate to others. Qualitative findings demonstrated diverse beliefs regarding the impact of dementia on factors related to personhood, for example, dignity, respect from others, and having a life worth living. In conclusion, the surrogates we interviewed expressed diverse preferences regarding goals of care and diverse assessments about the impact of dementia on personhood.