Search

Background: Many patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to speak up and responding when they do are needed., Objective: To identify factors which influence speaking up, and to examine the impact of apology when problems occur., Design: Randomised experiment using a vignette-based questionnaire describing 3 care breakdowns (slow response to call bell, rude aide, unanswered questions). The role of the person inquiring about concerns (doctor, nurse, patient care specialist), extent of the prompt (invitation to patient to share concerns) and level of apology were varied., Setting: National online survey., Participants: 1188 adults aged ≥35 years were sampled from an online panel representative of the entire US population, created and maintained by GfK, an international survey research organisation; 65.5% response rate., Main Outcomes and Measures: Affective responses to care breakdowns, intent to speak up, willingness to recommend the hospital., Results: Twice as many participants receiving an in-depth prompt about care breakdowns would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no prompt (18.4% vs 8.8% respectively (p=0.0067)). Almost three times as many participants receiving a full apology would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no apology (34.1% vs 13.6% respectively ((p<0.0001)). Feeling upset was a strong determinant of greater intent to speak up, but a substantial number of upset participants would not 'definitely' speak up. A more extensive prompt did not result in greater likelihood of speaking up. The inquirer's role influenced speaking up for two of the three breakdowns (rudeness and slow response)., Conclusions: Asking about possible care breakdowns in detail, and offering a full apology when breakdowns are reported substantially increases patients' willingness to recommend the hospital., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess patient comfort speaking up about problems during hospitalisation and to identify patients at increased risk of having a problem and not feeling comfortable speaking up., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Eight hospitals in Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia., Participants: Patients hospitalised at any one of eight hospitals who completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey postdischarge., Main Outcome Measures: Response to the question 'How often did you feel comfortable speaking up if you had any problems in your care?' grouped as: (1) no problems during hospitalisation, (2) always felt comfortable speaking up and (3) usually/sometimes/never felt comfortable speaking up., Results: Of 10 212 patients who provided valid responses, 4958 (48.6%) indicated they had experienced a problem during hospitalisation. Of these, 1514 (30.5%) did not always feel comfortable speaking up. Predictors of having a problem during hospitalisation included age, health status and education level. Patients who were older, reported worse overall and mental health, were admitted via the Emergency Department and did not speak English at home were less likely to always feel comfortable speaking up. Patients who were not always comfortable speaking up provided lower ratings of nurse communication (47.8 vs 80.4; p<0.01), physician communication (57.2 vs 82.6; p<0.01) and overall hospital ratings (7.1 vs 8.7; p<0.01). They were significantly less likely to definitely recommend the hospital (36.7% vs 71.7 %; p<0.01) than patients who were always comfortable speaking up., Conclusions: Patients frequently experience problems in care during hospitalisation and many do not feel comfortable speaking up. Creating conditions for patients to be comfortable speaking up may result in service recovery opportunities and improved patient experience. Such efforts should consider the impact of health literacy and mental health on patient engagement in patient-safety activities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Hospitals face a disclosure dilemma when large-scale adverse events affect multiple patients and the chance of harm is extremely low. Understanding the perspectives of patients who have received disclosures following such events could help institutions develop communication plans that are commensurate with the perceived or real harm and scale of the event., Methods: A mailed survey was conducted in 2008 of 266 University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) patients who received written disclosure in 2004 about a large-scale, low-harm/low-risk adverse event involving an incomplete endoscope cleaning process. The survey measured patients' satisfaction with this disclosure, their concerns about healthcare outcomes, and their recommendations for future communication, given similar circumstances., Results: Surveys were received from 127 of 266 (48 percent) of eligible respondents; 98 percent thought that UWMC was right to inform them about this event, and mean satisfaction with the disclosure was 7.7 on a 0 to 10 scale. Of the 127 respondents, 64 percent were somewhat or very concerned that the endoscope cleaning problem might cause them health problems; 60 percent reported their impressions of UWMC's honesty and integrity had increased; 31 percent said their perceptions of the quality of care had increased; 94 percent agreed that institutions should tell patients about any error in their care, even when the risk of harm was low, although 28 percent agreed that such notifications would make them anxious. Respondents who reported concern that the event could cause them health problems were less likely to be satisfied with the institution's disclosure. Patients cited their right to know information material to their own health and healthcare as an important reason for disclosure., Conclusion: Recipients of disclosure of a large-scale, low-harm/low-risk event overwhelmingly supported being told of the event and endorsed notification of patients for similar events in the future. Although informing patients may cause concern for some, institutions should ensure their disclosure policies and procedures reflect their patients' preferences.

Objective: Despite large numbers of emergency encounters, little is known about how emergency department (ED) patients conceptualize their risk of medical errors. This study examines how safe ED patients feel from medical errors, which errors are of greatest concern, how concerns differ by patient and hospital characteristics, and the relationship between concerns and willingness to return for future care., Methods: Multiwave telephone interviews of 767 patients from 12 EDs were conducted. Patients were asked about their medical safety, concern about eight types of medical errors, and satisfaction with care., Results: Eighty-eight percent of patients believed that their safety from medical errors had been good, very good, or excellent; 38% of patients reported experiencing at least one specific error-related concern, most commonly misdiagnosis (22% of all patients), physician errors (16%), medication errors (16%), nursing errors (12%), and wrong test/procedure (10%). Concerns were associated with gender (p < 0.01), age (p < 0.0001), ethnicity (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), ED volume (p < 0.0001), day of week (p < 0.0001), and hospital type (p < 0.0001). Concerns were highly related to a patient's willingness to return to the ED., Conclusions: The majority of ED patients felt relatively safe from medical errors, yet a significant percentage of patients experienced concern about a specific error during their emergency encounter. Concerns varied by both patient and hospital characteristics and were highly linked to patient satisfaction. The selective nature of concerns may suggest that patients are attuned to cues they perceive to be linked to specific medical errors, but efforts to involve patients in error detection/prevention programs will be challenging given the stressful and intimidating nature of ED encounters.

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.