Search

Background: Adverse-event incident disclosure is gaining international attention as being central to incident management, practice improvement, and public engagement, but those charged with its execution are experiencing barriers. Findings have emerged from two large studies: an evaluation of the 2006-2008 Australian Open Disclosure Pilot, and a 2009-2010 study of patients' and relatives' views on actual disclosures. Clinicians and patients interviewed in depth suggest that open disclosure communication has been prevented by a range of uncertainties, fears, and doubts., Methods: Across Australia, 147 clinical staff were interviewed (mostly over the phone), and 142 patients and relatives were interviewed in their homes or over the phone. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by three independent investigators. Transcription analyses yielded thematic domains, each with a range of ancillary issues., Results: Analysis of interview transcripts revealed several important barriers to disclosure: uncertainty among clinicians about what patients and family members regard as requiring disclosure; clinicians' assumption that those harmed are intent on blaming individuals and not interested in or capable of understanding the full complexity of clinical failures; concerns on the part of clinicians about how to interact with (angry or distressed) patients and family members; uncertainties about how to guide colleagues through disclosure; and doubts surrounding how to manage disclosure in the context of suspected litigation risk, qualified-privilege constraints, and risk-averse approaches adopted by insurers., Conclusions: Disclosure practices appear to be inhibited by a wide range of barriers, only some of which have been previously reported. Strategies to overcome them are put forward for frontline clinicians, managerial staff, patient advocates, and policy agencies.

Objectives: To investigate patients' and family members' perceptions and experiences of disclosure of healthcare incidents and to derive principles of effective disclosure., Design: Retrospective qualitative study based on 100 semi-structured, in depth interviews with patients and family members., Setting: Nationwide multisite survey across Australia., Participants: 39 patients and 80 family members who were involved in high severity healthcare incidents (leading to death, permanent disability, or long term harm) and incident disclosure. Recruitment was via national newspapers (43%), health services where the incidents occurred (28%), two internet marketing companies (27%), and consumer organisations (2%)., Main Outcome Measures: Participants' recurrent experiences and concerns expressed in interviews., Results: Most patients and family members felt that the health service incident disclosure rarely met their needs and expectations. They expected better preparation for incident disclosure, more shared dialogue about what went wrong, more follow-up support, input into when the time was ripe for closure, and more information about subsequent improvement in process. This analysis provided the basis for the formulation of a set of principles of effective incident disclosure., Conclusions: Despite growing prominence of open disclosure, discussion about healthcare incidents still falls short of patient and family member expectations. Healthcare organisations and providers should strengthen their efforts to meet patients' (and family members') needs and expectations.