Views of faculty members in a medical school with regards to error disclosure and reporting to parents and/or higher authorities.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the views of faculty members who train medical students concerning open disclosure. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the views of faculty in a medical school on: 1 what constitutes a medical error and the severity of such an error in relation to medication use or diagnosis; 2 information giving following such an adverse event, based on severity; and 3 acknowledgement of responsibility, remedial action, compensation, disciplinary action, legal action, and reporting to a higher body in relation to such adverse event. METHODS: We adapted and contextualized a questionnaire developed from a previous study. The questionnaire had 4 case vignettes that described 1 clear medication error with lifelong disability; 2 possible diagnostic error with lifelong disability; 3 possible diagnostic error without harm; and 4 clear medication error without harm. We invited all faculty members attached to the medical school at the International Medical University to participate in the study. RESULTS: Seventy faculty members took part. Faculty members viewed a medical error as having taken place depending on how clearly an error had occurred (94% and 73% versus 53% and 27%). They viewed cases as more severe based on the severity of complications (85% and 46% versus 5% and 10%). With increasing severity, they tended to attribute responsibility for the event and the duty to disclose towards more senior clinicians. They were also more agreeable with remedial action, compensation, disciplinary action, and reporting to a higher agency. There was no strong evidence of association between these areas and the demographics of faculty members. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty members are more likely to perceive an error had occurred depending on the clarity of the circumstances. They viewed severity based on the presence of complications. Severity determined how they attributed responsibility, duty to disclose, and other areas related to open disclosure.

Evaluation of a bedside test for phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in preterm labour.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of a bedside test kit for phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1) in the diagnosis of preterm labour and the prediction of subsequent preterm delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a bedside test for IGFBP-1 in 47 women who presented to the delivery suite in suspected preterm labour between 23 and 33 weeks. Tocolysis and steroid therapy were administered in all cases. RESULTS: Twenty-nine women (61.7%) tested negative and 18 women tested positive (38.3%). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups except that the test-positive group had a greater median cervical dilatation (2.0 cm) compared to the testnegative group (1.0 cm) (P <0.05). The women who tested positive had a statistically significant longer median duration of hospitalisation, stay in delivery suite and tocolytic therapy (5.0 days, 56.0 hours and 34.5 hours respectively) compared to women who were test-negative (3.0 days, 19.0 hours and 10.0 hours respectively) (P <0.05). In addition, 91.7% of the patients in the IGFBP-1 negative group had a delay of more than 7 days between the onset of contractions and delivery, while only 44.4% of the women in the pIGFBP-1 positive group experienced such a delay. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there may be a role for cervical IGFBP-1 test in the management of women presenting with suspected preterm labour. It may allow us to focus our efforts on women who are more likely to have a preterm delivery and perhaps allow us to avoid unnecessary treatment and to contain healthcare costs.