Structuring Patient And Family Involvement In Medical Error Event Disclosure And Analysis

Abstract

The study of adverse event disclosure has typically focused on the words that are said to the patient and family members after an event. But there is also growing interest in determining how patients and their families can be involved in the analysis of the adverse events that harmed them. We conducted a two-phase study to understand whether patients and families who have experienced an adverse event should be involved in the postevent analysis following the disclosure of a medical error. We first conducted twenty-eight interviews with patients, family members, clinicians, and administrators to determine the extent to which patients and family members are included in event analysis processes and to learn how their experiences might be improved. Then we reviewed our interview findings with patients and health care experts at a one-day national conference in October 2011. After evaluating the findings, conference participants concluded that increasing the involvement of patients and their families in the event analysis process was desirable but needed to be structured in a patient-centered way to be successful. We conclude by describing when and how information from patients might be incorporated into the event analysis process and by offering recommendations on how this might be accomplished.

A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships

“…These findings add to growing evidence that patients can identify mistakes 5 6 26. In a study of parents asked about safety incidents during their children's hospitalisations, over 80% of reports were found on physician review to contain medical errors or quality issues 7.…”

“…Yet while there is general support for engaging patients and families in safety,19–26 the literature remains equivocal on best practices 27–31. Critics worry that involving patients in safety may place undue burden on vulnerable and ill patients, introduce new worries or concerns about medical care, negatively impact the clinician-patient relationship6 32–34 or distract from safety efforts by focusing on service issues.…”

More than the Affordable Care Act: Topics and Themes in Health Policy Research

“…Quantitative methods have a lot to offer, but the subfield has plenty of activity in qualitative research and mixed methods to address the complexity of the problems of interest. Health Affairs has published work using ethnographic analysis (e.g., Bhatia & Corburn, ), interviews and content analysis (e.g., Etchegaray et al, ), and regularly features case studies (e.g., Bechelli et al, ; Laurance et al, ; Lerner, Robertson, & Goldstein, ; Rosenbaum, Cartwright‐Smith, Hirsh, & Mehler, ). The Milbank Quarterly has published studies using comparative (Sorenson & Drummond, ) and content analysis (Van der Wees et al, ), ethical (Rhodes & Miller, ) and critical interpretive analysis (Moat, Lavis, & Abelson, ), and has expanded its op‐ed section to include additional informed commentary from leading health policy scholars.…”

Patients and families as teachers: a mixed methods assessment of a collaborative learning model for medical error disclosure and prevention

“…Yet opportunities for patients and providers to come together, reflect and engage in collaborative learning about patient safety communication are still lacking 33 34. Little is known about the potential role for patients as teachers to help clinicians develop the relational and communication skills when things go wrong, and what risks PFE in patient safety education with clinicians may raise 18 20 21 26. Similarly, training patients as safety advocates if they observe a problem in care is rare, and patients seldom have opportunities to develop and practice the skills that enable them to speak up for themselves or their loved ones in the healthcare setting 27…”