Nurses' Perceptions of Error Reporting and Disclosure in Nursing Homes

Wagner, Laura M.; Harkness, Kimberley; Hébert, Philip C.; Gallagher, Thomas H.

doi:10.1097/ncq.0b013e318232c0bc

Cited by 35 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perceptions of the roles of other team members varied widely, particularly in relation to nurses and junior team members. In keeping with the limited literature that we found, 99,100,[168][169][170] nurses were not depicted as central to disclosure conversations by respondents, despite the common belief that nurses are often closer to the patient than other team members. There was divergence between interviewees regarding the degree of responsibility that should be held by junior team members.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk senior member of staff, such as the lead physician or nurse manager, to be primarily responsible for the disclosure of more serious events 99 but reported discontent with exclusion from the planning and delivery of such disclosures. 100 Uncertainty around what and how to tell patients about issues arising in their care appears to leave nurses feeling that they cannot freely address patients' queries about their care, which may result in inaccurate, incomplete or ill-timed disclosures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method could be used for any training, from the highest level of management to risk managers and front-line clinicians. Although the majority of training is directed at medical professionals, a number of barriers to nurse involvement in disclosures have been identified, principally in the area of training and knowledge of how to disclose incidents, 99 alongside uncertainty around the information that they could and should reveal. 100,101 The evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions has been captured in detail in the second, more specific review addressing effectiveness specifically (see Phase 1: review 2).…”

Section: Professional Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An exploration of the implementation of open disclosure of adverse events in the UK: a scoping review and qualitative exploration

Birks

Harrison

Bosanquet

et al. 2014

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn 2009 the UK National Patient Safety Agency relaunched its Being Open framework to facilitate the open disclosure of adverse events to patients in the NHS. The implementation of the framework has been, and remains, challenging in practice.AimThe aim of this work was to both critically evaluate and extend the current evidence base relating to open disclosure, with a view to supporting the implementation of a policy of open disclosure of adverse events in the NHS.MethodsThis work was conducted in three phases. The first phase comprised two focused systematic literature reviews, one summarising empirical research on the effectiveness of interventions to enhance open disclosure, and a second, broader scoping review, looking at reports of current opinion and practice and wider knowledge. The second phase involved primary qualitative research with the objective of generating new knowledge about UK-based stakeholders’ views on their role in and experiences of open disclosure. Stakeholder interviews were analysed using the framework approach. The third phase synthesised the findings from the first two phases to inform and develop a set of short pragmatic suggestions for NHS trust management, to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of open disclosure.ResultsA total of 610 papers met the inclusion criteria for the broad review. A large body of literature discussed open disclosure from a number of related, but sometimes conflicted, perspectives. Evidential gaps persist and current practice is based largely on expert consensus rather than evidence. There appears to be a tension between the existing pragmatic guidance and the more in-depth critiques of what being consistent and transparent in health care really means. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria for the more focused review. There was little evidence for the effectiveness of disclosure alone on organisational or individual outcomes or of interventions to promote and support open disclosure. Interviews with stakeholders identified strong support for the basic principle of being honest with patients or relatives when someone was seriously harmed by health care. In practice however, the issues are complex and there is confusion about a number of issues relating to disclosure policies in the UK. The interviews generated insights into the difficulties perceived within health care at individual and institutional levels, in relation to fully implementing the Being Open guidance.ConclusionsThere are several clear strategies that the NHS could learn from to implement and sustain a policy of openness. Literature reviews and stakeholder accounts both identified the potential benefits of a culture that was generally more open (not just retrospectively open about serious harm). Future work could usefully evaluate the impact of disclosure on legal challenges within the NHS, best practice in models of support and training for open disclosure, embedding disclosure conversations in critical incident analysis and disclosure of less serious events.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Professional Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An exploration of the implementation of open disclosure of adverse events in the UK: a scoping review and qualitative exploration

Birks

Harrison

Bosanquet

et al. 2014

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If patients did not know about the occurrence of a medical error [18,29,31], if patients did not seem to understand the explanation of the patient safety incidents [18,29, 31,58], or if patients seemed not to know what happened [18,29,31], it was difficult for medical professionals to conduct DPSI. Cognitive impairments and cultural differences, including language, also made it harder to perform DPSI [32,59].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency, Expected Effects, Obstacles, and Facilitators of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review

Ock

Lim

et al. 2017

J Prev Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe performed a systematic review to assess and aggregate the available evidence on the frequency, expected effects, obstacles, and facilitators of disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI).MethodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this systematic review and searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for English articles published between 1990 and 2014. Two authors independently conducted the title screening and abstract review. Ninety-nine articles were selected for full-text reviews. One author extracted the data and another verified them.ResultsThere was considerable variation in the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. The main expected effects of DPSI were decreased intention of the general public to file medical lawsuits and punish medical professionals, increased credibility of medical professionals, increased intention of patients to revisit and recommend physicians or hospitals, higher ratings of quality of care, and alleviation of feelings of guilt among medical professionals. The obstacles to DPSI were fear of medical lawsuits and punishment, fear of a damaged professional reputation among colleagues and patients, diminished patient trust, the complexity of the situation, and the absence of a patient safety culture. However, the factors facilitating DPSI included the creation of a safe environment for reporting patient safety incidents, as well as guidelines and education for DPSI.ConclusionsThe reported frequency of the experience of the general public with DPSI was somewhat lower than the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. Although we identified various expected effects of DPSI, more empirical evidence from real cases is required.

show abstract

“…Two of the five selected studies used quantitative designs [48,49], two used qualitative designs [50,51], and one was a mixed-methods study [52]. In total, the review's sample and setting consisted of 1299 nurses and 137 residential long-term care settings ( Table 2).…”

Section: General Sescription Of the Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disclosing and Reporting Practice Errors by Nurses in Residential Long-Term Care Settings: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient safety is crucial for the sustainability of the healthcare system. However, this may be jeopardized by the high prevalence of practice errors, particularly in residential long-term care. Development of improvement initiatives depends on full reporting and disclosure of practice errors. This systematic review aimed to understand factors that influence disclosing and reporting practice errors by nurses in residential long-term care settings. A systematic review using an integrative design was conducted. Electronic databases including PubMed (including Medline), Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, and Nordic and Spanish databases were searched using keywords relating to reporting and disclosing practice errors by nurses in residential long-term care facilities to retrieve articles published between 2010 and 2019. The search identified five articles, including a survey, a prospective cohort, one mixed-methods and two qualitative studies. The review findings were presented under the categories of the theoretical domains of Vincent’s framework for analyzing risk and safety in clinical practice: ‘patient’, ‘healthcare provider’, ‘task’, ‘work environment’, and ‘organisation & management’. The review findings highlighted the roles of older people and their families, nurses’ individual responsibilities, knowledge and collaboration, workplace atmosphere, and support by nurse leaders for reporting and disclosing practice errors, which had implications for improving the quality of healthcare services in residential long-term care settings.

show abstract

Nurses' Perceptions of Error Reporting and Disclosure in Nursing Homes

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

An exploration of the implementation of open disclosure of adverse events in the UK: a scoping review and qualitative exploration

An exploration of the implementation of open disclosure of adverse events in the UK: a scoping review and qualitative exploration

Frequency, Expected Effects, Obstacles, and Facilitators of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review

Disclosing and Reporting Practice Errors by Nurses in Residential Long-Term Care Settings: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About