Search

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) are intended to promote accountability, transparency, and learning after adverse events. In this article we address five key challenges to the programs' future success: implementation fidelity, the evidence base for CRPs and their link to patient safety, fair compensation of harmed patients, alignment of CRP design with participants' needs, and public policy on CRPs. While the field has arrived at an understanding of the core communication-and-resolution practices, limited adherence fuels skepticism that programs are meeting the needs of patients and families who have been injured by care or improving patient safety. Adherence to communication-and-resolution practices could be enhanced by adopting measures of CRP quality and implementing programs in a comprehensive, principled, and systematic manner. Of particular importance is offering fair compensation to patients in CRPs and supporting their right to attorney representation. There is evidence that the use of CRPs reduces liability costs, but research on other outcomes is limited. Additional research is especially needed on the links between CRPs and quality and on the programs' alignment with patients' and families' needs. By honoring principles of transparency, quality improvement, and patient and family empowerment, organizations can use their CRPs to help revitalize the medical profession.

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.

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) in health care organizations seek to identify medical injuries promptly; ensure that they are disclosed to patients compassionately; pursue timely resolution through patient engagement, explanation, and, where appropriate, apology and compensation; and use lessons learned to improve patient safety. CRPs have existed for years, but they are being tested in new settings and primed for broad implementation through grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These projects do not require changing laws. However, grantees' experiences suggest that the path to successful dissemination of CRPs would be smoother if the legal environment supported them. State and federal policy makers should try to allay potential defendants' fears of litigation (for example, by protecting apologies from use in court), facilitate patient participation (for example, by ensuring access to legal representation), and address the reputational and economic concerns of health care providers (for example, by clarifying practices governing National Practitioner Data Bank reporting and payers' financial recourse following medical error).

Under "disclosure-and-resolution" programs, health systems disclose adverse events to affected patients and their families; apologize; and, where appropriate, offer compensation. Early adopters of this approach have reported reduced liability costs, but the extent to which these results stem from effective disclosure and apology practices, versus compensation offers, is unknown. Using survey vignettes, we examined the effects of different compensation offers on individuals' responses to disclosures of medical errors compared to explanation and apology alone. Our results show that although two-thirds of these individuals desired compensation offers, increasing the offer amount did not improve key outcomes. Full-compensation offers did not decrease the likelihood of seeking legal advice and increased the likelihood that people perceived the disclosure and apology as motivated by providers' desire to avoid litigation. Hospitals, physicians, and malpractice insurers should consider this complex interplay as they implement similar initiatives. They may benefit from separating disclosure conversations and compensation offers and from excluding physicians from compensation discussions.

Apologies are rare in the medical world, where health care providers fear that admissions of guilt or expressions of regret could be used by plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits. Nevertheless, some states are moving toward giving health care providers legal protection so that they feel free to apologize to patients for a medical mistake. Advocates believe that these laws are beneficial for patients and providers. However, our analysis of "apology" and "disclosure" laws in thirty-four states and the District of Columbia finds that most of the laws have major shortcomings. These may actually discourage comprehensive disclosures and apologies and weaken the laws' impact on malpractice suits. Many could be resolved by improved statutory design and communication of new legal requirements and protections.

Although physicians have been described as "reluctant partners" in reporting medical errors, this survey of 1,082 U.S. physicians found that most were willing to share their knowledge about harmful errors and near misses with their institutions and wanted to hear about innovations to prevent common errors. However, physicians found current systems to report and disseminate this information inadequate and relied on informal discussions with colleagues. Thus, much important information remains invisible to institutions and the health care system. Efforts to promote error reporting might not reach their potential unless physicians become more effectively engaged in reporting errors at their institutions.

Physicians' cost containment incentives may create conflicts of interest. To understand how patients view these incentives, we interviewed 1,050 patients regarding a 10 percent cost control bonus and a combined cost control/quality bonus. Seventy-three percent said that the cost control bonus was a bad idea; 49 percent viewed the combined bonus more favorably than the cost control bonus; and 91 percent favored disclosure of bonuses. We conclude that patients find bonuses worrisome and favor their disclosure. A quality component reassures some, but not all, patients. Initiating a dialogue with patients about practicing medicine in an era of limited resources may help health plans and physicians to address patients' concerns.