Search

After a life-threatening complication of an injection for neck pain several years ago, Ms W experienced a wrong-site surgery to remove a squamous cell lesion from her nose, followed by pain, distress, and shaken trust in clinicians. Her experience highlights the challenges of communicating with patients after errors. Harmful medical errors occur relatively frequently. Gaps exist between patients' expectations for disclosure and apology and physicians' ability to deliver disclosures well. This discrepancy reflects clinicians' fear of litigation, concern that disclosure might harm patients, and lack of confidence in disclosure skills. Many institutions are developing disclosure programs, and some are reporting success in coupling disclosures with early offers of compensation to patients. However, much has yet to be learned about effective disclosure strategies. Important future developments include increased emphasis on institutions' responsibility for disclosure, involving trainees and other team members in disclosure, and strengthening the relationship between disclosure and quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Residents must prepare for effective communication with patients after medical errors. The video-based communication assessment (VCA) is software that plays video of a patient scenario, asks the physician to record what they would say, engages crowdsourced laypeople to rate audio recordings of physician responses, and presents feedback to physicians., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of VCA feedback in resident error disclosure skill training., Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2022 to May 2023 at 7 US internal medicine and family medicine residencies (10 total sites). Participants were second-year residents attending required teaching conferences. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2023., Intervention: Residents completed 2 VCA cases at time 1 and were randomized to the intervention, an individual feedback report provided in the VCA application after 2 weeks, or to control, in which feedback was not provided until after time 2. Residents completed 2 additional VCA cases after 4 weeks (time 2)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Panels of crowdsourced laypeople rated recordings of residents disclosing simulated medical errors to create scores on a 5-point scale. Reports included learning points derived from layperson comments. Mean time 2 ratings were compared to test the hypothesis that residents who had access to feedback on their time 1 performance would score higher at time 2 than those without feedback access. Residents were surveyed about demographic characteristics, disclosure experience, and feedback use. The intervention's effect was examined using analysis of covariance., Results: A total of 146 residents (87 [60.0%] aged 25-29 years; 60 female [41.0%]) completed the time 1 VCA, and 103 (70.5%) completed the time 2 VCA (53 randomized to intervention and 50 randomized to control); of those, 28 (54.9%) reported reviewing their feedback. Analysis of covariance found a significant main effect of feedback between intervention and control groups at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.26 [0.45] vs 3.14 [0.39]; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.48; P = .01). In post hoc comparisons restricted to residents without prior disclosure experience, intervention residents scored higher than those in the control group at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.33 [0.43] vs 3.09 [0.44]; difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = .007). Worse performance at time 1 was associated with increased likelihood of dropping out before time 2 (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.06-7.84; P = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, self-directed review of crowdsourced feedback was associated with higher ratings of internal medicine and family medicine residents' error disclosure skill, particularly for those without real-life error disclosure experience, suggesting that such feedback may be an effective way for residency programs to address their requirement to prepare trainees for communicating with patients after medical harm., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06234085.

Importance: The issue of the aging physician and when to cease practice has been controversial for many years. There are reports of prominent physicians who practiced after becoming dangerous in old age, but the profession has not demonstrated the ability to prevent this. A mandatory retirement age could be discriminatory and take many competent physicians out of practice and risk a physician shortage. An increasing body of evidence regarding the relationship between physicians' age and performance has led organizations, such as the American College of Surgeons, to revisit this challenge., Observations: Since 1975, the number of practicing physicians older than 65 years in the United States has increased by more than 374%, and in 2015, 23% of practicing physicians were 65 years or older. Research shows that between ages 40 and 75 years, the mean cognitive ability declines by more than 20%, but there is significant variability from one person to another, indicating that while some older physicians are profoundly impaired, others retain their ability and skills. There are age-based requirements for periodic testing and/or retirement for many professions including pilots, judges, air traffic controllers, Federal Bureau of Investigation employees, and firefighters. While there are not similar requirements for physicians, a few hospitals have introduced mandatory age-based evaluations., Conclusions: As physicians age, a required cognitive evaluation combined with a confidential, anonymous feedback evaluation by peers and coworkers regarding wellness and competence would be beneficial both to physicians and their patients. While it is unlikely that this will become a national standard soon, individual health care organizations could develop policies similar to those present at a few US institutions. In addition, large professional organizations should identify a range of acceptable policies to address the aging physician while leaving institutions flexibility to customize the approach. Absent robust professional initiatives in this area, regulators and legislators may impose more draconian measures.

Importance: Surgeons are frequently faced with clinical adverse events owing to the nature of their specialty, yet not all surgeons disclose these events to patients. To sustain open disclosure programs, it is essential to understand how surgeons are disclosing adverse events, factors that are associated with reporting such events, and the effect of disclosure on surgeons., Objective: To quantitatively assess surgeons' reports of disclosure of adverse events and aspects of their experiences with the disclosure process., Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational study was conducted from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, involving a 21-item baseline questionnaire administered to 67 of 75 surgeons (89%) representing 12 specialties at 3 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Sixty-two surveys of their communication about adverse events and experiences with disclosing such events were completed by 35 of these 67 surgeons (52%). Data were analyzed using mixed linear random-effects and logistic regression models., Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reports of disclosure assessed by 8 items from guidelines and pilot research, surgeons' perceptions of the adverse event, reported personal effects from disclosure, and baseline attitudes toward disclosure., Results: Most of the surgeons completing the web-based surveys (41 responses from men and 21 responses from women) used 5 of the 8 recommended disclosure items: explained why the event happened (55 of 60 surveys [92%]), expressed regret for what happened (52 of 60 [87%]), expressed concern for the patient's welfare (57 of 60 [95%]), disclosed the adverse event within 24 hours (58 of 60 [97%]), and discussed steps taken to treat any subsequent problems (59 of 60 [98%]). Fewer surgeons apologized to patients (33 of 60 [55%]), discussed whether the event was preventable (33 of 60 [55%]), or how recurrences could be prevented (19 of 59 [32%]). Surgeons who were less likely to have discussed prevention (33 of 60 [55%]), those who stated the event was very or extremely serious (40 of 61 surveys [66%]), or reported very or somewhat difficult experiences discussing the event (16 of 61 [26%]) were more likely to have been negatively affected by the event. Surgeons with more negative attitudes about disclosure at baseline reported more anxiety about patients' surgical outcomes or events following disclosure (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.16-2.06)., Conclusions and Relevance: Surgeons who reported they were less likely to discuss preventability of the adverse event, or who reported difficult communication experiences, were more negatively affected by disclosure than others. Quality improvement efforts focused on recognizing the association between disclosure and surgeons' well-being may help sustain open disclosure policies.

Context: Despite the best efforts of health care practitioners, medical errors are inevitable. Disclosure of errors to patients is desired by patients and recommended by ethicists and professional organizations, but little is known about how patients and physicians think medical errors should be discussed., Objective: To determine patients' and physicians' attitudes about error disclosure., Design, Setting, and Participants: Thirteen focus groups were organized, including 6 groups of adult patients, 4 groups of academic and community physicians, and 3 groups of both physicians and patients. A total of 52 patients and 46 physicians participated., Main Outcome Measures: Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine the attitudes of patients and physicians about medical error disclosure; whether physicians disclose the information patients desire; and patients' and physicians' emotional needs when an error occurs and whether these needs are met., Results: Both patients and physicians had unmet needs following errors. Patients wanted disclosure of all harmful errors and sought information about what happened, why the error happened, how the error's consequences will be mitigated, and how recurrences will be prevented. Physicians agreed that harmful errors should be disclosed but "choose their words carefully" when telling patients about errors. Although physicians disclosed the adverse event, they often avoided stating that an error occurred, why the error happened, or how recurrences would be prevented. Patients also desired emotional support from physicians following errors, including an apology. However, physicians worried that an apology might create legal liability. Physicians were also upset when errors happen but were unsure where to seek emotional support., Conclusions: Physicians may not be providing the information or emotional support that patients seek following harmful medical errors. Physicians should strive to meet patients' desires for an apology and for information on the nature, cause, and prevention of errors. Institutions should also address the emotional needs of practitioners who are involved in medical errors.