The root causes of medical malpractice claims are deeper and closer to home than most in the medical community care to admit. The University of Michigan Health System’s experience suggests that a response by the medical community more directly aimed at what drives patients to call lawyers would effectively reduce claims, without compromising meritorious defenses. More importantly, honest assessments of medical care give rise to clinical improvements that reduce patient injuries. Using a true case example, this article compares the traditional approach to claims with what is being done at the University of Michigan. The case example illustrates how an honest, principle-driven approach to claims is better for all those involved—the patient, the healthcare providers, the institution, future patients, and even the lawyers.

Incident reporting systems (IRS) are used to identify medical errors in order to learn from mistakes and improve patient safety in hospitals. However, IRS contain only a small fraction of occurring incidents. A more comprehensive overview of medical error in hospitals may be obtained by combining information from multiple sources. The WHO has developed the International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) in order to enable comparison of incident reports from different sources and institutions. Incident reports collected from IRS, patient complaints and retrospective chart review in an academic acute care hospital were classified using the ICPS. In conclusion, IRS do not capture all incidents in hospitals and should be combined with complementary information about diagnostic error and delayed treatment from patient complaints and retrospective chart review. Since incidents that are not recorded in IRS do not lead to remedial and preventive action in response to IRS reports, healthcare centres that have access to different incident detection methods should harness information from all sources to improve patient safety.

The nature and consequences of patient and family emotional harm stemming from preventable medical error, such as losing a loved one or surviving serious medical injury, is poorly understood. Patients and families, clinicians, social scientists, lawyers, and foundation/policy leaders were brought together to establish research priorities for this issue during a one-day conference. They discussed pertinent issues, patient and family experiences after serious harmful events, including profound isolation, psychological distress, damaging aspects of medical culture, health care aversion, and negative effects on communities. The group also created a strategy for overcoming research barriers and actionable “Do Now” approaches to improve the patient and family experience while research is ongoing.

This article discusses the prevalence of disruptive behavior in the healthcare setting, which is defined as any act that influences a group’s intended outcome. Disruptive behavior often takes the form of angry outbursts and passive aggressive actions, especially in extremely stressful environments, such as emergency rooms. This behavior is often detrimental to the culture of safety and quality healthcare, as well as increases the risk of lawsuits. To combat disruptive behavior, five principles are are offered as guides to promoting professionalism and professional accountability in support of quality team-oriented care, patient safety and, if necessary, legal defense if disruptive colleagues challenge disciplinary interventions. 

The authors discuss trends in the medical malpractice liability insurance market, consider the impacts COVID-19 has had, and suggest using a CRP approach during the pandemic to lessen the consequences of a hardening insurance market.

39 states have apology laws, with over a third applying to healthcare or other contexts. After over a decade of experience with apology laws, the authors explore whether apology laws reduce malpractice liability risk and why, and whether there is a reason to have them.

Background
Many health care organizations want to improve their responses to patients who suffer medical injuries. Their ability to understand how well they meet patients’ needs is limited by the lack of suitable instruments for assessing injured patients’ experiences.
Methods
This study aimed to generate items for a patient experience questionnaire that medical facilities can use to assess how well resolution met patients’ needs. The Medical Injury Reconciliation Experiences Survey (MIRES) was based on findings from previous studies of New Zealand and American patients’ experiences of non-litigation resolution of medical injuries. The researchers performed a content analysis of 24 transcripts from a stratified random sample of 92 interviews from the prior studies. Themes were extracted to develop a draft questionnaire, which was revised following feedback from experts. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 24 New Zealand and American injured patients.
Results
There were 40 items in the following domains: perceptions of communications with health care providers after the injury (15 items), perceptions of remedial gestures (11 items), indicia of the patient’s overall satisfaction with the reconciliation process (4 items), the nature and impacts of the injury (5 items), and patients’ characteristics (5 items). Participants’ feedback about the questionnaire was predominantly positive. Their suggestions led to 37 revisions.
Conclusion
The MIRES was comprehensible and acceptable to this group of post-injury patients. While further testing is desirable, the MIRES offers promise as a practicable approach that health care organizations can use to assess how well their reconciliation processes met patients’ needs.

Medical errors are associated with significant emotional, financial, physical and sociobehavioural impacts including reduced trust and willingness to seek healthcare. These impacts can last for years. The study sought to understand whether greater open communication is associated with reduced emotional impacts and decreased avoidance of doctors/facilities involved in the error.

Background: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood.

Methods: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients’ experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year).

Results: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5–2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1–2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3–12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03–2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1–7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3–3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2–2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3–3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8–12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2–3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2–9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1–3.9]).

Conclusion: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

This article explains the challenge of balancing accountability and a “no blame” model in healthcare systems when promoting patient safety. Accountability is defined as taking responsibility for one’s actions. In this article, it is taking responsibility for malpractice that increases patient harm. the “no blame” model is defined as not accusing a single entity for any healthcare misconduct. It is important for healthcare systems to embody both taking responsibility for healthcare malpractices as well as the “no blame” model to effectively promote patient safety and quality and reduce adverse health events.

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) aim to increase disclosure, learning, and responsibility following adverse medical incidents. The authors of this article identify five obstacles that prevent CRPs from being successful: 1) public policy, 2) compensation for patients following medical errors, 3) application fidelity, 4) evidence of CRPs increasing patient safety, and 5) alignment of CRP methods with patient needs. To increase the success of CRPs, it is recommended that they should be coupled with CRP quality programs. Overall, health institutions are advised to implement these programs into their systems to promote transparency and patient and family engagement.

This article explains how healthcare providers and insurers were skeptical of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Communication (AHQR) Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, which is a guide for healthcare providers to use if there was patient injury. Healthcare providers and insurers are weary of the CANDOR toolkit, since it does not quickly fix litigation scandals. This toolkit also does not effectively identify patient safety risks. However, the CANDOR toolkit is an effective step for healthcare providers to take in being honest and transparent with their patients about any malpractice or increased risk of injury.

The “Second Victim Rapid Response Team” was a system created to provide psychological, social, and emotional support for healthcare providers who are known”second victims” in the wake of any adverse health outcome or compromise in patient safety.

Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs) investigate and and communicate about events not caused by substandard care. CRPs were quite successful in handling such events, but less consistent in offering compensation in cases involving substandard care.

Operating communication and resolution programs (CRPs) where multiple organizations must collaborate can be highly challenging. Success likely requires several preconditions, including preexisting trust among organizations, active leadership engagement, physicians’ commitment to participate, mechanisms for quickly transmitting information to insurers, tolerance for missteps, and clear protocols for joint investigations and resolutions.

The Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management published study of an “open” hospital system shows that a Collaboration Communication-and-Resolution Program (CRP) cut lawsuits by two-thirds and reduced legal expenses and the time needed to resolve claims. Due to this program’s success, physicians are encouraged to integrate CRPs into their health practices to increase overall patient health quality and safety.

Among patients with chest pain, the implementation of a comprehensive communication-and-resolution program was associated with substantially reduced growth rates in the use of diagnostic testing and imaging services. Further research is needed to establish to what extent these changes were attributable to the program and clinically appropriate.

This study analyzed if a communication-and-resolution program (CRP) was effective in lowering adverse events among patients with chest pain, as well as lowering medical costs. The study concluded that the implementation of the CRP was efficient, since it helped increase the number of chest pain diagnoses as well as significantly reduced associated health costs.

The rapid rate of change in the world of management continues to escalate. New government regulations, new products, growth, increased competition, technological developments, and an evolving workforce compel organizations to undertake at least moderate change on a regular basis. Yet few major changes are greeted with open arms by employers and employees; they often result in protracted transitions, deadened morale, emotional upheaval, and the costly dedication of managerial time. Kotter and Schlesinger help calm the chaos by identifying four basic reasons why people resist change and offering various methods for overcoming resistance.

University of Missouri Health Care (MUHC) deployed an evidence-based emotional support structure for second victims based on research with recovering second victims known as the forYOU Team. It was designed to increase awareness of the second victim phenomenon, “normalize” the psychological and physical impacts, provide real-time surveillance for possible second victims within clinical settings, and render immediate peer-to-peer emotional support when a potential second victim is identified. This article describes the forYOU Team experience.

The Communication and Resolution Program (CRP) Certification program is a promising example of collaboration among institutions, insurers, and regulators to promote patient‐centered accountability and learning following adverse events in the healthcare setting. These programs are successful, because they promote transparency among patients after an adverse health incident, and increase overall health quality.

The importance of transparent and timely communication with patients following breakdowns in care is widely recognized. This article seeks to gain better understanding of breast cancer care providers’ attitudes regarding communicating with patients about diagnostic errors in order to inform interventions and to improve patient-provider discussions. 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.
 

The study was conducted gain a better understanding about the attitudes and experiences of breast cancer providers regarding communicating with patients about diagnostic error.

Highlights:

1. Providers more willing to inform patients of a diagnostic error when they felt it would be helpful.
2. Providers willing to inform patients of diagnostic error when feeling responsible for the error.
3. Providers willing to inform patients of diagnostic error if less concerned about litigation.
4. Providers more willing to inform patients of a diagnostic error when the patient asked directly.

This letter to the Editors emphasizes the importance of CRPs in allowing hospitals to learn from all adverse events, even those that may not be traced by loss adjusters, and that the benefits of CRPs exceed their potential to mitigate economic burdens, even during the challenging time of COVID-19.

In communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs), health systems and liability insurers encourage the disclosure of unanticipated care outcomes to affected patients and proactively seek resolutions, including offering an apology, an explanation, and, where appropriate, reimbursement or compensation. Anecdotal reports from the University of Michigan Health System and other early adopters of CRPs suggest that these programs can substantially reduce liability costs and improve patient safety. In this study, CRP participants were interviewed. They identified several factors that contributed to their programs’ success, including the presence of a strong institutional champion and investing in building and marketing the program to skeptical clinicians.

This article explains how communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) are successful in decreasing litigation fees and compensation that results from patient harm. However, the success of CRPs depends on patient satisfaction, making it necessary for healthcare professionals to focus on factors that increase this. Even though there is little evidence to support the idea that CRPs reduce adverse medical events that result in patient harm, these programs do have the potential to do so.

Researchers reviewed patterns in healthcare policies and trends in five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada) with histories of disclosing adverse incidents to patients. The researchers wanted to analyze the barriers that prevent healthcare providers and institutions from disclosing adverse events to their patients. They concluded that some barriers included difficulties with liability fees, patients’ beliefs on safety in the healthcare setting, and implementing policy changes on a large-scale. Effective ways to combat these challenges include carrying out a long-term program that involves educating patients and healthcare workers about safety.

Greater openness with patients about harmful errors is recommended. Many ethicists and professional organizations endorse disclosure of harmful errors to patients.The Joint Commission’s accreditation standards now require that patients be informed about unanticipated outcomes. In response, many hospitals are developing disclosure programs. Yet, recent studies suggest that disclosure of harmful medical errors to patients is the exception
rather than the rule. This article explores radiologists’ attitudes about disclosing errors to patients by using a survey with a vignette involving an error interpreting a patient’s mammogram, leading to a delayed cancer diagnosis.

Medical errors are unfortunately common. In the United States, Institute of Medicine proposed a set of guidelines for mitigating and disclosing errors. In order to implement these recommendations in pathology, it will require a better understanding of how errors occur in pathology, the relationship between pathologists and treating clinicians in reducing error, and pathologists’ experiences with and attitudes toward disclosure of medical error.This article aims to understand pathologists’ attitudes toward disclosing pathology error to treating clinicians and patients.

Despite the obvious need for open conversations with patients and their families following an adverse event, many organizations still lack the structure to support providers during this difficult time. In many cases, clinicians who have to disclose errors to patients and families fail due to lack of provider education and training, lack of confidence, fears of litigation and emotional distress.

The Ask-Tell-Ask Model focuses on successful disclosure coaching conversations. It includes:

1. Case Scenario
2. Key elements
3. Practical step-by-step strategies for disclosure coaching
4. Pedagogical model using the “Ask-Tell-Ask” approach
5. Organizational considerations for establishing a coaching program