J R Soc Med 2005;98:307-309
doi:10.1258/jrsm.98.7.307
© 2005 Royal Society of Medicine
Disclosure of medical error: policies and practice
Jawahar Kalra PhD FRCPC
K Lorne Massey MD
Amith Mulla MB BS
Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan
and Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Correspondence to: Professor Jay Kalra E-mail:
jay.kalra{at}saskatoonhealthregion.ca
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
In any healthcare process, some error is
inevitable.
1 As
indicated
in the US Institute of Medicine's report
To Err is
Human,
2 the
challenge
is to cut the rate of error to a minimum. In Canada, various
strategies
are being applied to this end and the Federal Government has
established
a Patient Safety Institute. The UK likewise has a National Patient
Safety
Agency. However, in the many
countries
3 where
efforts are being
made to reduce adverse events and errors, a neglected issue
is
honest disclosure to the patient or family. In this paper we
examine the
central issues, discuss the dilemmas concerning
'apology' and
suggest how we might work towards a systematic
and effective process.
 |
PREVENTABLE ADVERSE EVENTS
|
|---|
The rate of adverse events in hospital patients from studies
worldwide has
varied from 3.7% in New York to 11% in UK hospitals
and 16.6% in Australian
hospitals.
4-6
In Canada two recent papers
give rates of 5% and
7.5%,
7,8
and the report
Health Care in Canada 2004 states that about 5.2
million Canadians (representing
a quarter of the population) have experienced
a preventable
adverse event either in themselves or in a family
member.
9 The
wide
variation in reported adverse event rates is partly due
to differences in
study methods and patient selection. Moreover,
there is no agreement on what
constitutes 'preventability'.
Only a few studies looked at
preventability of adverse events
as part of their original
design.
5-7
But there is now a consensus
that, in terms of patient safety, many health
systems perform
below their potential best.
What, then, is the argument for being open with the patient and family,
even when the repercussions may be unpleasant and costly? We have to remember
that inappropriate blame attribution, to serve regulatory needs, will merely
alienate professionals and discourage them from participating in system
improvements.
The foremost justification is to safeguard public trust in the medical
profession, and the responsibility to disclose medical errors is acknowledged
in codes of professional
ethics.10 But
another argument is that patients have a right to information about errors in
terms of the respect due to them as persons, and indeed patients expect
doctors to recognize this
duty.12 In
addition, failure to disclose an error during the course of patient care may
compromise not only autonomy but also informed consent. For example,
disclosure may be essential if a patient is to give consent for treatment of
injury caused by an
error.13 Thus,
failure to disclose information on medical mistakes adversely affects the
patient's ability to make an intelligent decision, impairs patient trust
in the doctor and increases the likelihood of a malpractice
suit.14
 |
HONEST DISCLOSUREPROGRESS AND INITIATIVES
|
|---|
USA
In response to the Institute of Medicine's call for greater
transparency
and effective patient safety
standards,
2 we
proposed a 'no fault'
model whereby disclosure of adverse events to
patients is integral
to
accreditation.
15 In
2001 the US Joint Commission on Accreditation
of Healthcare Organizations
(JCAHO) announced an 'unanticipated
outcome' policy that demands
disclosure of a critical event
by the provider or the
institution.
16 The
only ambiguity concerns
the operational definition of an unanticipated
outcome, which
institutions must decide for themselves. In general, the Joint
Commission
recommends that the disclosure should be conducted by the doctor,
though
on occasion some other member of the team will be more suitable.
Some
individual States, among them Pennsylvania, Nevada and
Florida, have in recent
times complemented the federal initiatives
by imposing a statutory duty on
establishments to notify patients
in case of an adverse
event.
17-19
Australia
In 2002, a committee of the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in
Health Care offered an approach to achieving open and honest communication
with patients after an adverse
event,20 addressing
the interests of consumers, healthcare professionals, managers and
organizations. Like the policy proposed by the US Joint Commission, the draft
standard is flexible in allowing development of local policies and procedures.
The unique aspect of the Australian draft standard is the integration of
disclosure with a risk management analysis and investigation of the critical
event. The level of investigation will depend on grading of the event
according to the extent of injury and the likelihood of its occurrence.
UK
The National Health Service in 2003 declared a 'duty of candour',
whereby doctors and managers must inform a patient of an act of negligence or
omission that causes
harm.21 This scheme
offers the patient a package in the form of remedial care, apologies and
monetary compensation without the need for litigation. The affected patients,
if they accept the compensation package, waive their right to litigate.
Canada
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in 2002 called for
healthcare systems to promote disclosure on safety issues to all partners
including
patients,22 but no
uniform Canadian guidelines on the subject are yet in place. Reviewing
nationwide practices on adverse event disclosure we found that just a few
licensing bodies had ratified policies for disclosure and discussion of
negative outcomes during patient care. The College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Saskatchewan requires the physician to disclose any adverse events and
errors to the patient or his or her representative as soon as possible during
care, with ten guidelines on the steps in purposeful
disclosure.23 The
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba requires the physician to avoid
all speculations and state plain facts as known at the
time.24 In 2003,
after lengthy deliberation, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
approved a policy that made disclosure of harm to patients a standard of
practice,25 even in
circumstances when such disclosure may result in a complaint or a malpractice
insurance claim. A special aspect of the Ontario College policy is the
guideline for medical trainees (i.e. students or residents), who are advised
to report an adverse event either to their supervisor or to the 'most
responsible physician'. (The policy also specifies that the patient is
free to refuse discussion of the event.) The College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Quebec has no distinct policy on adverse event disclosure to
patients, but synthesizes the concept of disclosure in its code of
ethics.26
In Canada, there is nothing in the nature of the US Joint Commission
initiative, making disclosure of adverse events a requirement for hospital
accreditation. The absence of laws, federal or provincial, mandating adequate
disclosure of an adverse event to the patient is a key area of concern.
 |
THE DILEMMA OF AN APOLOGY
|
|---|
A key recommendation of the various global policies on medical
error
disclosure is to apologize to the patient, thus soothing
anger and lessening
suspicion.
27 But
doctors and others, though
possibly willing to accept responsibility and
express regret,
may be reluctant to pursue this course if it amounts to
admission
of guilt or legal liability. Liebman and
Hyman
28 distinguish
between
two types of apology 'apology of sympathy' and
'apology
of responsibility'. Since some legal jurisdictions consider
an
apology as evidence of liability, these authors suggest that
the risks and
benefits of an apology should be weighed up beforehand
by the doctors and
hospital administrators; and, indeed, it
is not uncommon to find risk managers
and hospital attorneys
discouraging a timely apology for fear of encouraging a
lawsuit.
Herein lies a dilemma, in view of the perception that an
appropriately
worded apology by the doctor can
reduce the likelihood
of a
lawsuit.
29
This conflict is partly resolved by measures such
as those introduced in
Massachusetts and Florida, whereby apologies
or expressions of regret to
patients are legally
protected.
30,31
Some
medical errors are due to system
failures
32 and in
these circumstances
the doctor may be disinclined to offer an 'apology of
responsibility'.
An insincere apology driven by regulatory standards and
institutional
policies may carry its own risks.
 |
CONCLUSIONS
|
|---|
The culture of malpractice suits continues to grow. Suits filed
solely for
monetary considerations abuse the tort system and
set an unacceptable
trend.
33 Blame and
retribution may have
their place, but society's interests are best served
by creating
a trusting environment that promotes honest disclosure of error.
To
restore trust successfully and perhaps lower malpractice claims,
both the
public and health care providers must avoid the 'shame
and blame'
game. The other challenge lies in achieving a balance
between a non-punitive
approach to error and the need for a
process that includes accountability and
suitable compensation
for patients. We suggest that this balance can be
achieved by
a system-based error disclosure programme.
 |
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New
Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2001
- Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. Committee on Quality of
Healthcare in America, Institute of Medicine. To Err is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 2000
- Federal/Provincial/Territorial Minister of Health establish new
Canadian Patient Safety Institute
[www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/2003/2003_99.htm].
Accessed 10 October 2004
- Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, et al. Incidence
of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the
Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med1991; 324:370
-6[Abstract]
- Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton
JD. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J
Aust 1995;163:458
-71[Medline]
- Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British
hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.
BMJ2001; 322:517
-19[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Forster AJ, Asmis TR, Clark HD, et al. Ottawa Hospital
Patient Safety Study: incidence and timing of adverse events in patients
admitted to a Canadian teaching hospital. Can Med Assoc
J 2004;170:1235
-40[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. The Canadian
Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients
in Canada. Can Med Assoc J2004; 170:1678
-86[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gagnon L. Medical errors affect nearly 25% of Canadians.
Can Med Assoc J2004; 171:123[Free Full Text]
- American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial
Affairs. Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions.
Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000
- Hebert PC, Levin AV, Robertson G. Bioethics for clinicians: 23.
Disclosure of medical error. Can Med Assoc J2001; 164:509
-13[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Ebers AG, Fraser VJ, Levinson W.
Patients' and physicians' attitudes regarding the disclosure of
medical errors. JAMA2003; 289:1001
-7[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Robertson GB. Fraudulent concealment and the duty to disclose
medical mistakes. Alberta Law Rev1987; 25:215
-23
- Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PB, Sloan FA. Factors that prompted
families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries.
JAMA1992; 267:1359
-63[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kalra J, Saxena A, Mulla A, Neufeld H, Qureshi M, Massey KL.
Medical Error: A Clinical Laboratory Approach in Enhancing Quality Care
[Abstract]. Clin Biochemistry2004; 37:732
-3
- Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization.
Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals: The Official
Handbook. Illinois: JCAHO, 2004
- Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (Mcare) Act. 13 Pa
C S
308 (2002)
- Nev Rev Stat
439.835 (2003)
- Fla Stat
395.1051 (2003)
- Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care.
Draft Open Disclosure Standard. Standards Australia,
XX 1234-2002, Draft v5.2
- Dyer C. NHS Staff should inform patients of negligent acts.
BMJ2003; 327:7[Free Full Text]
- National Steering Committee on Patient Safety. Building
a Safer Systema National Integrated Strategy for Improving Patient
Safety in Canadian Health Care. NSCPS,2002
- Physician disclosure of adverse events and errors that occur in the
course of patient care
[www.quadrant.net/cpss/index.html].
Accessed 15 October 2004
- Physician disclosure of harm that occurs in the course of patient
care
[www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/cps/Guidelines_and_Statements/169.html].
Accessed 15 October 2004
- Borsellino M. Disclosure of harm to be standard of practice.
Medical Post2003; 39(11)
- Code of Ethics of Physicians
[www.cmq.org/UploadedFiles/cmqcodedeontoan.pdf].
Accessed 15 October 2004
- Cohen JR. Apology and organizations: exploring an example from
medical practice. Fordham Urban Law2000; 27:1447
-82
- Liebman CB, Hyman CS. A mediation skills model to manage disclosure
of errors and adverse events to patients. Health
Affairs 2004;23(4):22
-32[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Mazor KM, Simon SR, Yood RA, et al. Health plan
members' views about disclosure of medical errors. Ann Intern
Med 2004;140:409
-18[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Mass Gen Laws ch 233,
23D
- Fla Stat
90.4026
- Kalra J. Medical error: an introduction to concepts.
Clin Biochem2004; 37:1043
-51[Medline]
- Kalra J, Massey KL, Mulla A. Disclosure of errors.
Health Affairs2004; 23:273
-4[Free Full Text]

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Wright and G. Opperman
The disclosure of medical errors: a catalyst for litigation or the way forward for better patient management?
Clin Risk,
September 1, 2008;
14(5):
193 - 196.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. Levinson MD and T. H. Gallagher MD
Disclosing medical errors to patients: a status report in 2007
Can. Med. Assoc. J.,
July 31, 2007;
177(3):
265 - 267.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Gooderham and J. Kalra
Disclosure of medical error * Author's reply
J R Soc Med,
September 1, 2005;
98(9):
437 - 437.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|