Patient and family member perspectives of encountering adverse events in health care: a systematic review

McVeety, Janice; Keeping‐Burke, Lisa; Harrison, Margaret B.; Godfrey, Christina; Ross‐White, Amanda

doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1599

Cited by 13 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our conclusion is consistent with other evidence that patients want the clinicians involved in the event to understand what went wrong and be involved in disclosure discussions 3 4. Some institutions may find the prospect of routinely involving treating providers challenging: what if the clinician in question is ‘not a people person’, as one respondent put it, or not to blame for the incident?…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…But apologies can easily fail, causing harm,46 especially when institutions include apology as an item on their disclosure checklist but are inattentive to its authenticity. Our study echoes previous research findings that apologies do not always lead to ‘closure’ because some patients perceive ‘I'm sorry’ as a ‘Band Aid’, devoid of ‘accountability’ or ‘results’ 3. Our findings lend empirical weight to philosophical arguments that coerced apologies may be harmful42 47 48 and to Lazare's work highlighting the importance of the timing of apologies and who offers them 46 49.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Our findings lend empirical weight to philosophical arguments that coerced apologies may be harmful42 47 48 and to Lazare's work highlighting the importance of the timing of apologies and who offers them 46 49. They are consistent with legal42 and empirical3 research suggesting that patients consider an apology more authentic if provided by the involved clinician(s).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Because patients are often unaware of this option,3 11 institutions should routinely notify patients that they can involve a support person.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing literature about injured patients' needs establishes some fundamentals: patients and families5 value efforts to prevent recurrences3 6 and disclosure communications that are honest, transparent, efficient and compassionate 3 7–9. Their accounts reveal that patient safety incidents often involve immense emotional, physical and financial impacts,10 which can be exacerbated by poor responses from providers 11 12…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Improving reconciliation following medical injury: a qualitative study of responses to patient safety incidents in New Zealand

Moore

2017

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite the investment in exploring patient-centred alternatives to medical malpractice in New Zealand (NZ), the UK and the USA, patients' experiences with these processes are not well understood. We sought to explore factors that facilitate and impede reconciliation following patient safety incidents and identify recommendations for strengthening institution-led alternatives to malpractice litigation.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 62 patients injured by healthcare in NZ, administrators of 12 public hospitals, 5 lawyers specialising in Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) claims and 3 ACC staff. NZ was chosen as the research site because it has replaced medical malpractice litigation with a no-fault scheme. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes from interview transcripts.ResultsInterview responses converged on five elements of the reconciliation process that were important: (1) ask, rather than assume, what patients and families need from the process and recognise that, for many patients, being heard is important and should occur early in the reconciliation process; (2) support timely, sincere, culturally appropriate and meaningful apologies, avoiding forced or tokenistic quasi-apologies; (3) choose words that promote reconciliation; (4) include the people who patients want involved in the reconciliation discussion, including practitioners involved in the harm event; and (5) engage the support of lawyers and patient relations staff as appropriate.DiscussionPolicymakers and healthcare institutions are keenly interested in non-litigation approaches to resolving malpractice incidents. Interviewing participants involved in patient safety incident reconciliation processes suggests that healthcare institutions should not view apology as a substitute for other remedial actions; use flexible guidelines that distil best-practice principles, ensuring that steps are not missed, while not prescribing a ‘one size fits all’ communication approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Because patients are often unaware of this option,3 11 institutions should routinely notify patients that they can involve a support person.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Improving reconciliation following medical injury: a qualitative study of responses to patient safety incidents in New Zealand

Moore

2017

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of a patient and family activated escalation system: Ryan's Rule

Dwyer

Flenady

Kahl

et al. 2020

Australian Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disclosing Adverse Events in Clinical Practice: The Delicate Act of Being Open

Myren

Hullu

Bastiaans

et al. 2020

Health Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practicing a "safe" disclosure of adverse events remains challenging for healthcare professionals. In addition, knowledge on how to deliver a disclosure is still limited. This review focuses on how disclosure communication may be practiced based on the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals. Empirical studies conducted between September 2008 and October 2019 were included from the databases PubMed, Web of Science and Psychinfo. After full text analysis and quality appraisal this scoping review included a total of 23 studies out of 2537 studies. As a first step, the needs of patients and the challenges of healthcare professionals with the practice of providing an effective disclosure were extracted from the empirical literature. Based on these findings, the review demonstrates that specific disclosure communication strategies on the level of interpersonal skills, organization, and supportive factors may facilitate healthcare professionals to provide optimal disclosure of adverse events. These may be relevant to provide patients with a tailored approach that accompanies their preferences for information and recognition. In conclusion, healthcare professionals may need training in interpersonal (verbal and nonverbal) communication skills. Furthermore, it is important to develop an open (organizational) culture that supports the communication of adverse events and disclosure as a standard practice.

show abstract

Patient and family member perspectives of encountering adverse events in health care: a systematic review

Cited by 13 publications

References 7 publications

Improving reconciliation following medical injury: a qualitative study of responses to patient safety incidents in New Zealand

Improving reconciliation following medical injury: a qualitative study of responses to patient safety incidents in New Zealand

Evaluation of a patient and family activated escalation system: Ryan's Rule

Disclosing Adverse Events in Clinical Practice: The Delicate Act of Being Open

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About