BackgroundAlthough physicians believe that medical errors should be disclosed to patients and their families, they often hesitate to do so. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of an education program for medical error disclosure.MethodsIn 2015, six medical interns and 79 fourth-year medical students participated in this study. The education program included practice of error disclosure using a standardized patient scenario, feedback, and short didactic sessions. Participant performance was evaluated with a previously developed rating scale that measures error disclosure performance on five specific component skills. Following education program, we surveyed participant perceptions of medical error disclosure with varying severity of error outcome and their satisfaction with the education program using a 5-point Likert scale. We also surveyed the change of attitude or confidence of participants after education program.ResultsThe performance score was not significantly different between medical interns and medical students (p = 0.840). Following the education program, 65% of participants said that they had become more confident in coping with medical errors, and most participants (79.7%) were satisfied with the education program. They also indicated that they felt a greater duty to disclose medical errors and deliver an apology when the medical error outcome is more severe.ConclusionsAn education program for disclosing medical errors was helpful in improving confidence in medical error disclosure. Extending the program to more diverse scenarios and a more diverse group of physicians is needed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0880-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose This study aimed to investigate burnout and resilience among emergency physicians (EPs) at university teaching hospitals during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and Methods In April to May 2021, a survey was administered to 331 and 309 emergency medicine specialists and residents, respectively, from 31 university teaching hospitals in Korea. Data on the respondents’ age, sex, designation, working area, experience with treating COVID-19 patients, and personal experience with COVID-19 were collected. Based on the participants’ characteristics, quality of life (compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress), resilience, emotional content, and self-image were analyzed. Results A total of 247 responses were analyzed. Compared to specialists, compassion satisfaction and resilience in residents were not good, burnout was severe, and emotional content and self-image were less positive. Experiences with treating COVID-19 patients did not cause any difference in quality of life, resilience, emotional content, and self-image among participant subgroups. Personal COVID-19 experiences were associated with poor compassion satisfaction, resilience, less positive emotional content and self-image, and severe burnout. Compassion satisfaction, secondary traumatic stress, and resilience can definitively affect burnout. Conclusion The quality of life and resilience of EPs in university teaching hospitals in Korea during the COVID-19 pandemic have been low. Supportive measures to improve resilience can prevent burnout among emergency staff, particularly residents and EPs, with personal experiences related to COVID-19.

Methods:The CPX was taken by 77 fourth year medical students. Cases and checklist were developed by the medical school consortium in capital area. Six cases were used and 24 SPs participated and evaluated the students' performances. The whole session was recorded on videotapes so that 6 medical school faculties could analyze and evaluate the students' performances as well. The results were compared and analyzed by SPSS package.Results: The agreement between the faculties and the SPs was relatively good (r=0.79), but not good enough. In every case, SPs gave higher marks than did the faculties. Clear disease entity cases like "hepatitis" and "anemia" showed better agreement than obscure clinical contexts such as "bad news delivery". Better agreement was seen in the items of physical exam category (r=0.91), but the agreement was very poor in the items of doctor-patient (Dr-Pt) relationship category (r=0.54). The construction of checklist and the character of each evaluation item should influence the differences.Conclusion: More detailed guidelines and clear/specific evaluating items are necessary to improve the agreement rate. In certain categories like physical exam and brief history taking, the SP's evaluation can replace the faculties', but for complex contexts like Dr-Pt relationship. 󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏