Search

Nurses have an obligation to disclose an error when one occurs. This study explored 1180 nurses' perceptions of error disclosure in the nursing home setting. Nurse respondents found disclosure to be a difficult process. Registered nurse respondents and nurses who had prior experience disclosing a serious error were more likely to disclose a serious error. The study has implications to improve nursing education, policy, and patient safety culture in the nursing home setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accountability in medicine, once assigned primarily to individual doctors, is today increasingly shared by groups of health-care providers. Because patient safety experts emphasize that most errors are caused not by individual providers, but rather by system breakdowns in complex health-care teams, individual doctors are left to wonder where their accountability lies. Increasingly, teams deliver care. But patients and doctors alike still think of accountability in individual terms, and the law often measures it that way. Drawing on an example of delayed lung cancer diagnosis, we describe the mismatch between how we view errors (systems) and how we apportion blame (individuals). We discuss "collective accountability," suggesting that this construct may offer a way to balance a "just culture" and a doctor's specific responsibilities within the framework of team delivery of care. The concept of collective accountability requires doctors to adopt transparent behaviors, learn new skills for improving team performance, and participate in institutional safety initiatives to evaluate errors and implement plans for preventing recurrences. It also means that institutions need to prioritize team training, develop robust, nonpunitive reporting systems, support clinicians after adverse events and medical error, and develop ways to compensate patients who are harmed by errors. A conceptual leap to collective accountability may help overcome longstanding professional and societal norms that not only reinforce individual blame and impede patient safety but may also leave the patient and family without a true advocate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A gap exists between recommendations to disclose errors to patients and current practice. This gap may reflect important, yet unanswered questions about implementing disclosure principles. We explore some of these unanswered questions by presenting three real cases that pose challenging disclosure dilemmas. The first case involves a pancreas transplant that failed due to the pancreas graft being discarded, an error that was not disclosed partly because the family did not ask clarifying questions. Relying on patient or family questions to determine the content of disclosure is problematic. We propose a standard of materiality that can help clinicians to decide what information to disclose. The second case involves a fatal diagnostic error that the patient's widower was unaware had happened. The error was not disclosed out of concern that disclosure would cause the widower more harm than good. This case highlights how institutions can overlook patients' and families' needs following errors and emphasizes that benevolent deception has little role in disclosure. Institutions should consider whether involving neutral third parties could make disclosures more patient centered. The third case presents an intraoperative cardiac arrest due to a large air embolism where uncertainty around the clinical event was high and complicated the disclosure. Uncertainty is common to many medical errors but should not deter open conversations with patients and families about what is and is not known about the event. Continued discussion within the medical profession about applying disclosure principles to real-world cases can help to better meet patients' and families' needs following medical errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

BACKGROUND: The 3rd year of medical school is stressful, yet students may hesitate to access their school's mental health services. DESCRIPTION: We instituted the Clerkship Counseling Hotline, an anonymous, 24-hour cell phone hotline staffed by an independent counselor. EVALUATION: Hotline calls were logged, and students were surveyed regarding the hotline. Seventeen students called the hotline 25 times during the year. Callers' concerns included disillusionment with medicine, anxiety over performance, and personal problems. The hotline did not reduce overall student stress compared with the 3rd-year classes preceding the hotline. However, 75% said continuing the hotline was important, and 75% found the hotline's availability reassuring. CONCLUSION: A clerkship counseling hotline may enhance medical schools' mental health resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In Arabidopsis thaliana we demonstrate that dying root hairs provide an easy and rapid in vivo model for the morphological identification of apoptotic-like programmed cell death (AL-PCD) in plants. The model described here is transferable between species, can be used to investigate rates of AL-PCD in response to various treatments and to identify modulation of AL-PCD rates in mutant/transgenic plant lines facilitating rapid screening of mutant populations in order to identify genes involved in AL-PCD regulation.

Objective: Guidelines on apology and disclosure after adverse events and errors have been in place for over 5 years. This study examines whether patients consider recommended responses to be appropriate and desirable, and whether clinicians' actions after adverse events are consistent with recommendations.Methods: Patients who believed that something had gone wrong during their cancer care were identified. During in-depth interviews, patients described the event, clinicians' responses, and their reactions.Results: 78 patients were interviewed. Patients' valued apology and expressions of remorse, empathy and caring, explanation, acknowledgement of responsibility, and efforts to prevent recurrences, but these key elements were often missing. For many patients, actions and evidence of clinician learning were most important.Conclusion: Patients' reports of apology and disclosure when they believe something has gone wrong in their care suggest that clinicians' responses continue to fall short of expectations.Practice Implications: Clinicians preparing to talk with patients after an adverse event or medical error should be aware that patients expect their actions to be congruent with their words of apology and caring. Healthcare systems need to support clinicians throughout the disclosure process, and facilitate both system and individual learning to prevent recurrences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the best approaches and format for measuring physicians' communication skills in an online environment. This study examines the reliability and validity of scores from two Web-based communication skill assessment formats. METHODS: We created two online communication skill assessment formats: (a) MCQ (multiple-choice questions) consisting of video-based multiple-choice questions; (b) multi-format including video-based multiple-choice questions with rationales, Likert-type scales, and free text responses of what physicians would say to a patient. We randomized 100 general internists to each test format. Peer and patient ratings collected via the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) served as validity sources. RESULTS: Seventy-seven internists completed the tests (MCQ: 38; multi-format: 39). The adjusted reliability was 0.74 for both formats. Excellent communicators, as based on their peer and patient ratings, performed slightly better on both tests than adequate communicators, though this difference was not statistically significant. Physicians in both groups rated test format innovative (4.2 out of 5.0). CONCLUSION: The acceptable reliability and participants' overall positive experiences point to the value of ongoing research into rigorous Web-based communication skills assessment. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With efficient and reliable scoring, the Web offers an important way to measure and potentially enhance physicians' communication skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Late career physicians (LCPs; physicians working beyond age 65 to 75 years) may be at higher risk for delivering unsafe care. To oversee LCPs, some health care organizations (HCOs) have adopted LCP policies requiring cognitive, physical, and practice performance screening assessments. Despite recent controversies, little is known about the content and implementation of such policies., Objective: To characterize key features of LCP policies and the perspectives of medical leaders responsible for policy development and implementation., Design: Mixed-methods study using content analysis and key informant interviews., Setting: 29 U.S. HCOs with LCP policies active in 2020., Participants: 21 purposively sampled interviewees in physician leadership roles at 18 HCOs., Measurements: Descriptive statistics of policy features and content analysis of interviews., Results: Although policies had many commonalities-mandatory universal screening at a trigger age around 70 years, a strategy of screening followed by in-depth assessment of positive results, and commitment to patient safety as the key motive-they varied substantially in the testing required, funding, processes after a positive screening result, and decision making around concerning results. Policies prioritized institutional discretion in interpreting and responding to test results; many lacked clear language about appeals or other procedural protections for physicians. Leaders were generally satisfied with policies but reported preemptive retirements as physicians approached the screening age and cautioned that substantial investment in cultivating physicians' buy-in was required for successful rollout., Limitations: Sampled policies and interviews may not be representative of all HCOs. The analysis excluded the experiences of HCOs that tried and failed to implement LCP screening., Conclusion: Policies about LCPs are considered successful by institutional leaders. Policy variations and early adopters' implementation experiences highlight opportunities to improve physician acceptance and program rigor., Primary Funding Source: The Greenwall Foundation., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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.

Objectives: We sought to assess the experiences and perceptions of healthcare stakeholders involved in the response to historically marginalized patients who have been harmed in healthcare. We investigated the challenges in disclosing errors and adverse events and the types of tools and resources that would better address the needs of historically marginalized patient populations., Methods: We conducted separate focus groups with two healthcare stakeholder groups: (1) frontline clinicians directly involved in the clinical care of historically marginalized patients and (2) risk and patient safety professionals involved in the hospital response to care breakdowns. We conducted an inductive analysis of the qualitative data to identify thematic clusters., Results: We interviewed 7 clinicians and 5 risk safety professionals, with a total sample size of 12 participants. Participants shared multilevel challenges in responding to historically marginalized patients after harm (system-, organizational-, and patient-level), such as fragmentation of care, lack of standardized protocols, and patient mistrust. Participants also identified their desired tools and resources for disclosure to meet the needs of historically marginalized patients, which included culturally appropriate toolkits, disclosure training, and the inclusion of multidisciplinary healthcare team members in the disclosure process., Conclusions: Our results suggest that multiple interventions will be needed to achieve the goal of prompt disclosure of errors and adverse events across all populations engaged in health care. Future studies should investigate the perspectives of historically marginalized patients and their family members on how error and adverse event disclosure conversations should unfold., Competing Interests: U.S. holds current research funding from the National Cancer Institute, California Healthcare Foundation, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. She has received prior grant funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Blue Shield of California Foundation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HopeLab, and the Commonwealth Fund. She received gift funding from the Doctors Company Foundation. She holds contract funding from InquisitHealth, Somnology, and RecoverX. U.S. serves as a scientific/expert advisor for nonprofit organizations HealthTech 4 Medicaid (volunteer) and for HopeLab (volunteer). She is a member of the American Medical Association’s Equity and Innovation Advisory Group (honoraria) and is on the Board of Directors of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement. She is an advisor for Waymark (shares) and for Ceteri Capital I GP, LLC (shares). She has been a clinical advisor for Omada Health (honoraria), and an advisory board member for Doximity (honoraria). The other authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: US residents require practice and feedback to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates and patient expectations for effective communication after harmful errors. Current instructional approaches rely heavily on lectures, rarely provide individualized feedback to residents about communication skills, and may not assure that residents acquire the skills desired by patients. The Video-based Communication Assessment (VCA) app is a novel tool for simulating communication scenarios for practice and obtaining crowdsourced assessments and feedback on physicians' communication skills. We previously established that crowdsourced laypeople can reliably assess residents' error disclosure skills with the VCA app. However, its efficacy for error disclosure training has not been tested., Objective: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of using VCA practice and feedback as a stand-alone intervention for the development of residents' error disclosure skills., Methods: We conducted a pre-post study in 2020 with pathology, obstetrics and gynecology, and internal medicine residents at an academic medical center in the United States. At baseline, residents each completed 2 specialty-specific VCA cases depicting medical errors. Audio responses were rated by at least 8 crowdsourced laypeople using 6 items on a 5-point scale. At 4 weeks, residents received numerical and written feedback derived from layperson ratings and then completed 2 additional cases. Residents were randomly assigned cases at baseline and after feedback assessments to avoid ordinal effects. Ratings were aggregated to create overall assessment scores for each resident at baseline and after feedback. Residents completed a survey of demographic characteristics. We used a 2×3 split-plot ANOVA to test the effects of time (pre-post) and specialty on communication ratings., Results: In total, 48 residents completed 2 cases at time 1, received a feedback report at 4 weeks, and completed 2 more cases. The mean ratings of residents' communication were higher at time 2 versus time 1 (3.75 vs 3.53; P<.001). Residents with prior error disclosure experience performed better at time 1 compared to those without such experience (ratings: mean 3.63 vs mean 3.46; P=.02). No differences in communication ratings based on specialty or years in training were detected. Residents' communication was rated higher for angry cases versus sad cases (mean 3.69 vs mean 3.58; P=.01). Less than half of all residents (27/62, 44%) reported prior experience with disclosing medical harm to patients; experience differed significantly among specialties (P<.001) and was lowest for pathology (1/17, 6%)., Conclusions: Residents at all training levels can potentially improve error disclosure skills with VCA practice and feedback. Error disclosure curricula should prepare residents for responding to various patient affects. Simulated error disclosure may particularly benefit trainees in diagnostic specialties, such as pathology, with infrequent real-life error disclosure practice opportunities. Future research should examine the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of VCA within a longitudinal error disclosure curriculum., (©Andrew A White, Ann M King, Angelo E D’Addario, Karen Berg Brigham, Suzanne Dintzis, Emily E Fay, Thomas H Gallagher, Kathleen M Mazor. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 03.10.2022.)

Objectives: We aim to assess the influence of COVID-19 on the social needs of emergency department (ED) patients, and assess patients' access to social services., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 175 purposively sampled adult ED patients., Results: Approximately half of participants stated that COVID-19 negatively impacted their social needs with statistically significant differences observed for race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Many participants did not know of available social services, and a majority welcomed assistance from the ED., Conclusion: This study suggests that unmet social needs have risen because of COVID-19, and EDs may be positioned to identify and assist affected patients., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Timothy H. Gallagher et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Background: Residents may benefit from simulated practice with personalized feedback to prepare for high-stakes disclosure conversations with patients after harmful errors and to meet American Council on Graduate Medical Education mandates. Ideally, feedback would come from patients who have experienced communication after medical harm, but medical researchers and leaders have found it difficult to reach this community, which has made this approach impractical at scale. The Video-Based Communication Assessment app is designed to engage crowdsourced laypeople to rate physician communication skills but has not been evaluated for use with medical harm scenarios., Objective: We aimed to compare the reliability of 2 assessment groups (crowdsourced laypeople and patient advocates) in rating physician error disclosure communication skills using the Video-Based Communication Assessment app., Methods: Internal medicine residents used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app; the case, which consisted of 3 sequential vignettes, depicted a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer. Panels of patient advocates who have experienced harmful medical error, either personally or through a family member, and crowdsourced laypeople used a 5-point scale to rate the residents' error disclosure communication skills (6 items) based on audiorecorded responses. Ratings were aggregated across items and vignettes to create a numerical communication score for each physician. We used analysis of variance, to compare stringency, and Pearson correlation between patient advocates and laypeople, to identify whether rank order would be preserved between groups. We used generalizability theory to examine the difference in assessment reliability between patient advocates and laypeople., Results: Internal medicine residents (n=20) used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app. All patient advocates (n=8) and 42 of 59 crowdsourced laypeople who had been recruited provided complete, high-quality ratings. Patient advocates rated communication more stringently than crowdsourced laypeople (patient advocates: mean 3.19, SD 0.55; laypeople: mean 3.55, SD 0.40; P<.001), but patient advocates' and crowdsourced laypeople's ratings of physicians were highly correlated (r=0.82, P<.001). Reliability for 8 raters and 6 vignettes was acceptable (patient advocates: G coefficient 0.82; crowdsourced laypeople: G coefficient 0.65). Decision studies estimated that 12 crowdsourced layperson raters and 9 vignettes would yield an acceptable G coefficient of 0.75., Conclusions: Crowdsourced laypeople may represent a sustainable source of reliable assessments of physician error disclosure skills. For a simulated case involving delayed diagnosis of breast cancer, laypeople correctly identified high and low performers. However, at least 12 raters and 9 vignettes are required to ensure adequate reliability and future studies are warranted. Crowdsourced laypeople rate less stringently than raters who have experienced harm. Future research should examine the value of the Video-Based Communication Assessment app for formative assessment, summative assessment, and just-in-time coaching of error disclosure communication skills., (©Andrew A White, Ann M King, Angelo E D’Addario, Karen Berg Brigham, Suzanne Dintzis, Emily E Fay, Thomas H Gallagher, Kathleen M Mazor. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 29.04.2022.)

Abstract: Error disclosure is a high-stakes, emotionally charged interaction for patients and families as well as clinicians. A failed disclosure can result in emotional distress, reduced patient and family trust, litigation, and lost opportunities to learn from and prevent subsequent errors. However, many clinicians have little expertise in handling these challenging interactions and can inadvertently make a bad situation worse. Even those clinicians who have had formal disclosure training may have trouble remembering what they were taught when faced with the need to actually discuss an error with patients. Providing just-in-time coaching to clinicians is recommended by national standards. However, there is scant training material to guide error disclosure coaches. Therefore, we developed an "Ask-Tell-Ask" model and materials to guide the disclosure coaching process. The Ask-Tell-Ask model is well-suited to provide clinicians with targeted interactive teaching immediately before a disclosure without overwhelming them with lecture-style facts that they are unlikely to retain. Such teaching would ideally be provided by trained disclosure coaches, available for just-in-time support of clinicians throughout the disclosure process. The Ask-Tell-Ask model can also help risk managers, department heads, clinical managers, attending physicians, service chiefs, and others who assist clinicians with error disclosure. Here, we describe a comprehensive approach to coaching developed over years of coaching experience that incorporates the model, its rationale, step-by-step coaching strategies and guidance (including sample scripts), and organizational considerations regarding implementation of a coaching program to support patient-centered transparent communication after harmful events., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients and families report experiencing a multitude of harms from medical errors resulting in physical, emotional, and financial hardships. Little is known about the duration and nature of these harms and the type of support needed to promote patient and family healing after such events. We sought to describe the long-term impacts (LTIs) reported by patients and family members who experienced harmful medical events 5 or more years ago., Methods: We performed a content analysis on 32 interviews originally conducted with 72 patients or family members about their views of the factors contributing to their self-reported harmful event. Interviews selected occurred 5 or more years after the harmful event and were grouped by time since event, 5 to 9 years (22 interviews) or 10 or more years (10 interviews) for analysis. We analyzed these interviews targeting spontaneous references of ongoing impacts experienced by the participants., Results: Participants collectively described the following four LTIs: psychological, social/behavioral, physical, and financial. Most cited psychological impacts with half-reporting ongoing anger and vivid memories. More than half reported ongoing physical impacts and one-third experienced ongoing financial impacts. Long-term social and behavioral impacts such as alterations in lifestyle, self-identity, and healthcare seeking behaviors were the most highly reported., Conclusions: These patients and families experienced many profound LTIs after their harmful medical event. For some, these impacts evolved into secondary harms ongoing 10 years and more after the event. Our results draw attention to the persistent impacts patients and families may experience long after harmful events and the need for future research to understand and support affected patients and families., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Many patients with cancer believe that something has gone wrong in their care but are reluctant to speak up. This pilot study sought to evaluate the impact of an intervention of active outreach to patients undergoing cancer treatment, wherein patients were encouraged to speak up if they had concerns about their care and to describe the types of concerns patients reported., Methods: Patients receiving cancer care at two sites were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention patients received a brochure encouraging them to speak up about any concerns and an outreach telephone call during which the interviewer explicitly asked about concerns. Participants in both groups received baseline and follow-up questionnaires assessing their perceptions of their care and whether anything had "gone wrong" and provided ratings of health care providers' communication and responsiveness. Qualitative content coding was used to categorize patient-reported concerns collected through the baseline and follow-up questionnaires (both groups) and during telephone outreach (intervention patients only). The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting a concern about their care. Communication and responsiveness ratings for intervention and control group patients were compared using t tests., Results: Of the 60 patients in the intervention group, 34 (56.7%) reported at least one problem or concern, compared with 16 (29.1%) of the 55 patients in the control group (P = 0.003). The telephone outreach in particular resulted in more than half of those reached reporting a new concern (55.3%). We detected no impact of the intervention on patients' ratings of communication or support for speaking up., Conclusions: Patients in this study reported a variety of concerns in response to active outreach, demonstrating that active outreach to patients can provide healthcare teams and systems the opportunity to offer a real-time response to the patient, identify where system improvements are needed, and implement policies, procedures, or programs to prevent recurrences., (Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants ( N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants' perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants' likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients' behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants' willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations' disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The following authors are currently employed by the sponsor (funding agency): AR Elwy, EM Maguire, SM Asch, JM Durfee, BG Bokhour, AL Gifford, TJ Taylor, and TH Wagner., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Objective: Effective physician-patient communication is important, but physicians who are seeking to improve have few opportunities for practice or receive actionable feedback. The Video-based Communication Assessment (VCA) provides both. Using the VCA, physicians respond to communication dilemmas depicted in brief video vignettes; crowdsourced analog patients rate responses and offer comments. We characterized analog patients' comments and generated actionable recommendations for improving communication., Methods: Physicians and residents completed the VCA; analog patients rated responses and answered:"What would you want the provider to say in this situation?" We used qualitative analysis to identify themes., Results: Forty-three participants completed the VCA; 556 analog patients provided 1035 comments. We identified overarching themes (e.g., caring, empathy, respect) and generated actionable recommendations, incorporating analog patient quotes., Conclusion: While analog patients' comments could be provided directly to users, conducting a thematic analysis and developing recommendations for physician-patient communication reduced the burden on users, and allowed for focused feedback. Research is needed into physicians' reactions to the recommendations and the impact on communication., Practice Implications: Physicians seeking to improve communication skills may benefit from practice and feedback. The VCA was designed to provide both, incorporating the patient voice on how best to communicate in clinical situations., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Washington State's HealthPact program was launched in 2011 as part of AHRQ's Patient Safety and Medical Liability Reform initiative. HealthPact delivered interdisciplinary communication training to health-care professionals with the goal of enhancing safety. We conducted 2 exploratory, retrospective database analyses to investigate training impact on the frequency of adverse events (AEs) and select quality measures across 3 time frames: pretraining (2009-2011), transition (2012), and posttraining (2013)., Methods: Using administrative data from Washington State's Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS) and clinical registry data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP), we compared proportions of AEs and quality measures between HealthPact (n = 4) and non-HealthPact (n = 93-CHARS; n = 48-SCOAP) participating hospitals. Risk ratios enabled comparisons between the 2 groups. Multivariable logistic regression enabled investigation of the association between training and the frequency of AEs., Results: Approximately 9.4% (CHARS) and 7.7% (SCOAP) of unique patients experienced 1 AE or greater. In CHARS, the odds of a patient experiencing an AE in a HealthPact hospital were initially (pretraining) higher than in a non-HealthPact hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.17), lower in transition (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83) and posttraining (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) periods. In SCOAP, ORs were consistently lower in HealthPact hospitals: pretraining (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95), transition (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81), and posttraining (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68). The proportion of at-risk patients that experienced each individual AE was low (<1%) throughout. Adherence to quality measures was high., Conclusions: Interprofessional communication training is an area of intense activity nationwide. A broad-based training initiative may play a role in mitigating AEs., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2008, the Veterans Health Administration published a groundbreaking policy on disclosing large-scale adverse events to patients in order to promote transparent communication in cases where harm may not be obvious or even certain. Without embedded research, the evidence on whether or not implementation of this policy was generating more harm than good among Veteran patients was unknown. Through an embedded research-operations partnership, we conducted four research projects that led to the development of an evidence-based large-scale disclosure toolkit and disclosure support program, and its implementation across VA healthcare. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we identified specific activities corresponding to planning, engaging, executing, reflecting and evaluating phases in the process of implementation. These activities included planning with operational leaders to establish a shared research agenda; engaging with stakeholders to discuss early results, establishing buy-in of our efforts and receiving feedback; joining existing operational teams to execute the toolkit implementation; partnering with clinical operations to evaluate the toolkit during real-time disclosures; and redesigning the toolkit to meet stakeholders' needs. Critical lessons learned for implementation success included a need for stakeholder collaboration and engagement, an organizational culture involving a strong belief in evidence, a willingness to embed researchers in clinical operation activities, allowing for testing and evaluation of innovative practices, and researchers open to constructive feedback. At the conclusion of the research, VA operations worked with the researchers to continue to support efforts to spread, scale-up and sustain toolkit use across the VA healthcare system, with the final goal to establish long-term sustainability., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients have important insights into care experiences, including breakdowns, but are often reluctant to speak up. The We Want to Know (WWTK) program was designed to make it easy for hospitalized patients to speak up about breakdowns in care and receive a response., Methods: The WWTK program was implemented from June 2014 through May 2017 at a large, community hospital in Baltimore. Core program features include (1) multiple channels for patients to report breakdowns, (2) campaign materials to increase patient awareness of the WWTK program, and (3) a specialist to facilitate resolution of breakdowns. This program was evaluated using mixed methods to assess the frequency and type of reported breakdowns, patient awareness of the program, and stakeholder perspectives., Results: WWTK specialists interviewed 4,676 patients; 822 (17.6%) reported a breakdown in care. Of these, 313 (38.1%) had not spoken with anyone at the hospital about the breakdown, and 547 (66.5%) described associated harm. There were also 55 patient-initiated reports to WWTK; 41 (74.5%) of these reported a care breakdown. Patients had not spoken with anyone at the hospital in 12 (29.3%) patient-initiated cases; 38 (92.7%) described associated harm. Hospital stakeholders found the level of detail and timeliness of reports to be helpful., Conclusion: Active outreach to hospitalized patients detects substantially more breakdowns in care than patient-initiated reporting. Both approaches identify breakdowns that are consequential to patients and provide opportunities to respond to individual patients., (Copyright © 2020 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 gain understanding of breast cancer care providers' attitudes regarding communicating with patients about diagnostic errors, to inform interventions to improve patient- provider discussions., Methods: Focus groups were held in three U.S. states involving 41 breast cancer care providers from a variety of specialties. Discussions focused on providers' experiences with potential errors in breast cancer diagnosis, communication with patients following three hypothetical diagnostic vignettes, and suggestions for how and why diagnostic errors in breast cancer care should be communicated. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed., Results: Providers were more willing to inform breast cancer patients of a diagnostic error when they felt it would be helpful, when they felt responsible for the error, when they were less concerned about litigation, and when the patient asked directly., Conclusions: Breast cancer care providers experience several challenges when considering whether to inform a patient about diagnostic errors. A better understanding of patients' preferences for open communication, combined with customized tools and training, could increase clinicians' comfort with these difficult discussions., Practice Implications: Providers gave suggestions to facilitate discussions about diagnostic errors when these events occur, including themes of education, honesty, and optimism., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

A general consensus has been reached in health care organizations that the disclosure of medical errors can be a very powerful way to improve patients and physicians well-being and serves as a core component to high quality health care. This practice strongly encourages transparent communication with patients after medical errors or unanticipated outcomes. However, many countries, such as Brazil, do not have a culture of disclosing harmful errors to patients or standards emphasizing the importance of disclosing, taking responsibility, apologizing, and discussing the prevention of recurrences. Medical error is not discussed or approached during medical school. The stigma of error has a strong connection with value judgments, and emotional support for physicians does not exist. This paper suggests that open communication with the patient is essential. Guidance about error disclosure from health care organizations would be helpful for quality and patient safety and for health care professionals in countries like Brazil.

Background: Academic faculty who devote most of their time to clinical work often struggle to engage in meaningful scholarly work. They may be disadvantaged by limited research training and limited time. Simply providing senior mentors and biostatistical support has limited effectiveness., Objective: We aimed to increase productivity in scholarly work of hospitalists and internal medicine physicians by integrating an Academic Research Coach into a robust faculty development program., Design: This was a pre-post quality improvement evaluation., Setting: This was conducted at the University of Washington in faculty across three academic-affiliated hospitals and 10 academic-affiliated clinics., Participants: Participants were hospitalists and internists on faculty in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington., Intervention: The coach was a 0.50 full time equivalent health services researcher with strong research methods, project implementation, and interpersonal skills. The coach consulted on research, quality improvement, and other scholarship., Measurements: We assessed the number of faculty supported, types of services provided, and numbers of grants, papers, and abstracts submitted and accepted., Results: The coach consulted with 49 general internal medicine faculty including 30 hospitalists who conducted 63 projects. The coach supported 13 publications, 11 abstracts, four grant submissions, and seven manuscript reviews. Forty-eight faculty in other departments benefited as co-authors., Conclusion: Employing a dedicated health services researcher as part of a faculty development program is an effective way to engage clinically oriented faculty in meaningful scholarship. Key aspects of the program included an accessible and knowledgeable coach and an ongoing marketing strategy.

Background: Unprecedented numbers of physicians are practicing past age 65. Unlike other safety-conscious industries, such as aviation, medicine lacks robust systems to ensure late-career physician (LCP) competence while promoting career longevity., Objective: To describe the attitudes of key stakeholders about the oversight of LCPs and principles that might shape policy development., Design: Thematic content analysis of interviews and focus groups., Participants: 40 representatives of stakeholder groups including state medical board leaders, institutional chief medical officers, senior physicians (>65 years old), patient advocates (patients or family members in advocacy roles), nurses and junior physicians. Participants represented a balanced sample from all US regions, surgical and non-surgical specialties, and both academic and non-academic institutions., Results: Stakeholders describe lax professional self-regulation of LCPs and believe this represents an important unsolved challenge. Patient safety and attention to physician well-being emerged as key organising principles for policy development. Stakeholders believe that healthcare institutions rather than state or certifying boards should lead implementation of policies related to LCPs, yet expressed concerns about resistance by physicians and the ability of institutions to address politically complex medical staff challenges. Respondents recommended a coaching and professional development framework, with environmental changes, to maximise safety and career longevity of physicians as they age., Conclusions: Key stakeholders express a desire for wider adoption of LCP standards, but foresee significant culture change and practical challenges ahead. Participants recommended that institutions lead this work, with support from regulatory stakeholders that endorse standards and create frameworks for policy adoption., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)