Factors affecting nursing error communication in intensive care units: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Error communication includes both reporting errors to superiors and disclosing their consequences to patients and their families. It significantly contributes to error prevention and safety improvement. Yet, some errors in intensive care units are not communicated. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to explore factors affecting error communication in intensive care units. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study was conducted in 2019. Participants were 17 critical care nurses purposively recruited from the intensive care units of 2 public hospitals affiliated to Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and were analyzed through the conventional content analysis method proposed by Graneheim and Lundman. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran approved the study (code: IR.IUMS. REC.1397.792). Participants were informed about the study aim and methods and were ensured of data confidentiality. They were free to withdraw from the study at will. Written informed consent was obtained from all of them. FINDINGS: Factors affecting error communication in intensive care units fell into four main categories, namely the culture of error communication (subcategories were error communication organizational atmosphere, clarity of processes and guidelines, managerial support for nurses, and learning organization), the consequences of errors for nurses and nursing (subcategories were fear over being stigmatized as incompetent, fear over punishment, and fear over negative judgments about nursing), the consequences of errors for patients (subcategories were monitoring the effects of errors on patients and predicting the effects of errors on patients), and ethical and professional characteristics (subcategories were ethical characteristics and inter-professional relationships). DISCUSSION: The results of this study show many factors affect error communication, some facilitate and some prohibit it. Organizational factors such as the culture of error communication and the consequences of error communication for the nurse and the patient, as well as individual and professional characteristics, including ethical characteristics and interprofessional relationship, influence this process. CONCLUSION: Errors confront nurses with ethical challenges and make them assess error consequences and then, communicate or hide them based on the results of their assessments. Health authorities can promote nurses' error communication through creating a supportive environment for them, developing clear error communication processes and guidelines, and providing them with education about the principles of ethical practice.

¿Tiene el médico enfermo imagen de su propia enfermedad?: un dilema bioético / Does the sick physician have an accurate picture of his own disease?: a bioethical dilemma

Se refiere aquí una experiencia vivida en la convalecencia de una enfermedad por un cirujano cardíaco en un hospital con clientela cerrada, en una época en que no existían otros servicios en la ciudad y habiendo sido él mismo el "fundador" del Servicio, debiendo practicar cirugía de revascularización coronaria. La enfermedad, definitivamente, constituye una nueva dimensión de la sensibilidad, a veces carente de razonamiento según Broeckman, o al decir de Lolas Strepke "falla la teorización del rol de estar enfermo", y eso es lo que introduce a los médicos en el laberinto. Nos preguntamos finalmente: ¿Quién se ocupa del "cuidado del médico", o sea, del "cuidado del cuidador"? Se concluye que, por lo general, el médico, estando enfermo, no tiene imagen real de su propia enfermedad. Falta analizar los aspectos narcisistas psicológicos de los cirujanos. (AU)

What is reported here is an experience lived in the convalescence of a disease by a cardiac surgeon within a hospital of closed clientele, at a time when there were no other services in the city and having been himself the "founder" of that same service, having to practice coronary revascularization. Illness definitely constitutes a new dimension of sensitivity, sometimes lacking in reasoning according to Broeckman, or as Lolas Strepke says "the theorization on the role of being sick fails", and that is what makes physicians end up in a labyrinth. So finally, we ask ourselves, who deals with the "care of the doctor" or the "care of the caregiver"? It is concluded that generally the doctor, being sick, has no realistic image of his own illness. We lack an analysis of the psychological narcissistic aspects of surgeons. (AU)

Neuroenhancement in surgeons: benefits, risks and ethical dilemmas.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons traditionally aim to reduce mistakes in healthcare through repeated training and advancement of surgical technology. Recently, performance-enhancing interventions such as neurostimulation are emerging which may offset errors in surgical practice. METHODS: Use of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), a novel neuroenhancement technique that has been applied to surgeons to improve surgical technical performance, was reviewed. Evidence supporting tDCS improvements in motor and cognitive performance outside of the field of surgery was assessed and correlated with emerging research investigating tDCS in the surgical setting and potential applications to wider aspects of healthcare. Ethical considerations and future implications of using tDCS in surgical training and perioperatively are also discussed. RESULTS: Outside of surgery, tDCS studies demonstrate improved motor performance with regards to reaction time, task completion, strength and fatigue, while also suggesting enhanced cognitive function through multitasking, vigilance and attention assessments. In surgery, current research has demonstrated improved performance in open knot-tying, laparoscopic and robotic skills while also offsetting subjective temporal demands. However, a number of ethical issues arise from the potential application of tDCS in surgery in the form of safety, coercion, distributive justice and fairness, all of which must be considered prior to implementation. CONCLUSION: Neuroenhancement may improve motor and cognitive skills in healthcare professions with impact on patient safety. Implementation will require accurate protocols and regulations to balance benefits with the associated ethical dilemmas, and to direct safe use for clinicians and patients.

ANTECEDENTES: Los cirujanos tratan de reducir sus errores durante la atención médica mediante el entrenamiento reiterado y los avances tecnológicos. Recientemente, han surgido otras opciones para mejorar el rendimiento, como la neuroestimulación que puede subsanar los errores en la práctica quirúrgica. MÉTODOS: Se revisó la utilización de la estimulación transcraneal de corriente directa (transcranial direct-current stimulation, tDCS), una técnica de estimulación neurológica que se ha aplicado a cirujanos para mejorar su rendimiento técnico. Se revisaron las evidencias que dan soporte a la mejoría en el rendimiento motor y cognitivo tras tDCS en otros ámbitos más allá de la cirugía y se correlacionó con datos recientes obtenidos en el entorno quirúrgico y sus posibles aplicaciones a otras áreas de la atención médica. También se discuten aspectos éticos y las implicaciones que la utilización de la tDCS pudiera tener en el entrenamiento quirúrgico y perioperatorio. RESULTADOS: Al margen de la cirugía, los estudios de tDCS demuestran una mejoría en el rendimiento motor medido por el tiempo de reacción, de finalización de tareas, de fuerza y la fatiga, así como también sugieren un incremento de la función cognitiva a través de evaluaciones multitarea, de vigilancia y de atención. En cirugía, la investigación actual ha demostrado una mejoría en el rendimiento para la realización de nudos abiertos, habilidades laparoscópicas y robóticas, mientras también contrarresta las exigencias subjetivas materiales. Sin embargo, surgen aspectos éticos ante la posible aplicación de la tDCS en cirugía, como son la seguridad, la coerción, la justicia distributiva y la equidad, situaciones que deben considerarse antes de su implementación. CONCLUSIÓN: La estimulación neurológica puede mejorar las habilidades motoras y cognitivas de los profesionales sanitarios con repercusión en la seguridad del paciente. Su implementación requerirá de protocolos y regulaciones específicas para equilibrar los beneficios con los dilemas éticos asociados y garantizar su seguridad para médicos y pacientes.

Ethical evaluation of medical errors and the patient's safety.

In the offer of health care services, errors may arise that are repeated, so when one has occurred, it is essential to reflect on the elements that could cause it and act on them; however, in general, there is a natural tendency to hide them, mainly due to fear of sanctions or lawsuits. The ethics of clinical safety finds it essential to reveal errors, including almost errors or those without significant consequences, betting on transparent management of them. No error should be filed, since its review in an honest and open manner is not only an ethical obligation, but it can also help to lessen its effects and improve the doctor-patient relationship. Achieving safe medical care requires continuous learning about how the different components of the system interact, this implies putting into practice the behaviors that have shown their effectiveness to reduce the probability of the appearance of faults and errors, increase their detection and reduce their consequences, as well as continuing to investigate the factors that contribute to improving patient safety and the quality of care. In this paper we analyze the incidents related to patient safety, through statistical information from the Comisión Nacional de Arbitraje Médico (CONAMED), referring to complaint files concluded by arbitral award in the 2012-2016 period.

En la prestación de servicios de atención médica pueden surgir errores que se repiten; por ello, cuando se ha producido uno es indispensable reflexionar sobre los elementos que pudieron ocasionarlo y actuar sobre ellos. Sin embargo, de manera general, existe una tendencia natural a ocultar los errores, principalmente por temor a sanciones o demandas. La ética de la seguridad clínica encuentra indispensable revelar los errores, incluso los casi errores o aquellos sin consecuencias significativas, apostando por una gestión transparente de los mismos. Ningún error debe ser archivado, pues su revisión de forma honesta y abierta no solo es una obligación ética, sino que puede contribuir a aminorar sus efectos y mejorar la relación médico-paciente. Lograr una atención médica segura requiere aprendizaje continuo sobre cómo interaccionan los diferentes componentes del sistema; ello implica poner en práctica las conductas que han mostrado su efectividad para reducir la probabilidad de aparición de fallas y errores, aumentar su detección y disminuir sus consecuencias, así como continuar investigando sobre los factores que contribuyen a mejorar la seguridad del paciente y la calidad de la atención. En este trabajo se analizan los incidentes relacionados con la seguridad del paciente, a través de información estadística de la Comisión Nacional de Arbitraje Médico (CONAMED) referente a expedientes de queja concluidos por laudo en el periodo 2012-2016.

Ethical leadership, nursing error and error reporting from the nurses' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Nursing errors endanger patient safety, and error reporting helps identify errors and system vulnerabilities. Nursing managers play a key role in preventing nursing errors by using leadership skills. One of the leadership approaches is ethical leadership. AIM: This study determined the level of ethical leadership from the nurses' perspective and its effect on nursing error and error reporting in teaching hospitals affiliated to Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: A total of 171 nurses working in medical-surgical wards were selected through random sampling. Data collection was carried out using "ethical leadership in nursing, nursing errors and error reporting" questionnaires. Data were analyzed with SPSS20 using descriptive and analytical statistics. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Medical Research. Ethical considerations such as completing informed consent form, ensuring confidentiality of information, explaining research objectives, and voluntary participation were observed in the present study. FINDINGS: The results showed that the level of nursing managers' ethical leadership was moderate from the nurses' point of view. The highest and the lowest levels were related to the power-sharing and task-oriented dimensions, respectively. There was a significant relationship between nursing managers' level of ethical leadership with error rates and error reporting. CONCLUSION: The development of ethical leadership approach in nursing managers reduces error rate and increases error reporting. Programs designed to promote such approach in nursing managers at all levels can help reduce the level of error rate and maintain patient safety.

Medical Error and Moral Luck.

Medical error is the third-leading cause of death in the United States, but there has been little work done on the associated conceptual and normative questions. What is medical error? Is all medical error bad? The first section of this paper surveys the dominant conception of medical error-promulgated by the Institute of Medicine-and tries to understand whether error necessarily eventuates in adverse events. The second section challenges an asymmetry in the way that we think about error: For example, the received view would allow that undertesting could comprise medical error, whereas overtesting cannot. The third section considers the concept of moral luck and how it bears on our ascriptions of medical error.

Medical error in the care of the unrepresented: disclosure and apology for a vulnerable patient population.

Defined as patients who 'lack decision-making capacity and a surrogate decision-maker', the unrepresented (sometimes referred to as the 'unbefriended', 'isolated patients' and/or 'patients without surrogates') present a major quandary to clinicians and ethicists, especially in handling errors made in their care. A novel concern presented in the care of the unrepresented is how to address an error when there is seemingly no one to whom it can be disclosed. Given that the number of unrepresented Americans is expected to rise in the coming decades, and some fraction of them will experience a medical error, creating protocols that answer this troubling question is of the utmost importance. This paper attempts to begin that conversation, first arguing that the precarious position of unrepresented patients, particularly in regards to errors made in their care, demands their recognition as a vulnerable patient population. Next, it asserts that the ethical obligation to disclose error still exists for the unrepresented because the moral status of error does not change with the presence or absence of surrogate decision-makers. Finally, this paper concludes that in outwardly acknowledging wrongdoing, a clinician or team leader can alleviate significant moral distress, satisfy the standards of a genuine apology, and validate the inherent and equivalent moral worth of the unrepresented patient.

Teaching bioethics to postgraduate students in a public sector university: A report from Karachi, Pakistan.

Bioethics is not taught as a subject discipline in the undergraduate and postgraduate curriculum in Pakistan. Recently, medical colleges have introduced the behavioural sciences in the undergraduate curriculum, but this has its own limitations, as students are not examined at the end of course work, as in other subjects, which they have to clear in order to get promoted.

When There's No One to Whom an Error Can Be Disclosed, How Should an Error Be Handled?

Disclosure of harmful mistakes to patients and their families can be daunting for physicians, who tend to weigh their ethical obligations to inform against possible underlying fears of retaliation, perceived incompetence, or shame. When a patient is both incompetent and unrepresented, documentation, disclosure, and rectification of errors are particularly important to consider.

Nurses' Perceptions Regarding Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents in Korea: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine nurses' perceptions of the disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI), which is known to be effective in reducing medical litigation and improving the credibility of medical professionals. METHODS: Three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 nurses using semistructured guidelines. Transcribed content including a record of the progress of the focus group discussions and researchers' notes were analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants thought that DPSI is necessary because of its effectiveness and for ethical justification. However, participants held varied opinions regarding the primary responsibility of DPSI. Participants agreed on the necessity of explaining the incident and expressing sympathy, apologizing, and promising appropriate compensation that are chief components of DPSI. However, they were concerned that it implies a definitive medical error. A closed organizational culture, fear of deteriorating relationships with patients, and concerns about additional work burdens were suggested as barriers to DPSI. However, the establishment of DPSI guidelines and improving the hospital organization culture were raised as facilitators of DPSI. CONCLUSION: Most nurse participants acknowledged the need for DPSI. To promote DPSI, it is necessary to develop guidelines for DPSI and provide the appropriate training. Improving the hospital organization culture is also critical to facilitate DPSI.

'Poking the skunk': Ethical and medico-legal concerns in research about patients' experiences of medical injury.

Improving how health care providers respond to medical injury requires an understanding of patients' experiences. Although many injured patients strongly desire to be heard, research rarely involves them. Institutional review boards worry about harming participants by asking them to revisit traumatic events, and hospital staff worry about provoking lawsuits. Institutions' reluctance to approve this type of research has slowed progress toward responses to injuries that are better able to meet patients' needs. In 2015-2016, we were able to surmount these challenges and interview 92 injured patients and families in the USA and New Zealand. This article explores whether the ethical and medico-legal concerns are, in fact, well-founded. Consistent with research about trauma-research-related distress, our participants' accounts indicate that the pervasive fears about retraumatization are unfounded. Our experience also suggests that because being heard is an important (but often unmet) need for injured patients, talking provides psychological benefits and may decrease rather than increase the impetus to sue. Our article makes recommendations to institutional review boards and researchers. The benefits to responsibly conducted research with injured patients outweigh the risks to participants and institutions.

Improving safety through speaking up: An ethical and financial imperative.

BACKGROUND: Fostering a culture that empowers staff to speak up when concerned about the quality or safety of patient care is both an ethically1 and economically2 responsible endeavor. The Michigan Health & Hospital Association (MHA) Keystone Center has implemented the Speak-Up! Award program that acknowledges frontline health care staff for voicing their concerns and making care safer. The objective of this effort was to advance patient safety in Keystone Center member organizations through widespread, measurable culture improvement. After extensive data collection and analysis, there was a discernable improvement in culture survey results across a 2-year period coinciding with the launch and sustainment of the award program. Furthermore, in an effort to demonstrate the power of speaking up among staff, the Keystone Center applied a cost-savings framework to the types of harm avoided. Results from the cost-savings analysis suggest that each instance of speaking up by staff saves patients, families, and health care organizations an average of more than $13,000. METHODS: Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award nominations were submitted through an electronic form that collects open, closed, and Likert-type question responses, producing a data array on type and severity of harm prevented, as well as the difficulty and magnitude of the decision to speak up. All data were then coded by harm type and subsequently applied to a tailored version of the cost-savings estimation framework used in the Great Lakes Partnership for Patients Hospital Improvement and Innovation Network. Safety culture was measured through the use of a survey instrument called the Safety, Communication, Operational Reliability, and Engagement (SCORE) instrument. RESULTS: The Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award program received 416 nominations across the 2-year study period, of which 62% (n = 258) were coded as a specific harm type. Adverse drug events (n = 153), imaging errors (n = 42), and specimen errors (n = 27) were the most common harm types prevented by speaking up. After applying the cost-savings framework to these data, it is estimated that for every instance of speaking up, approximately $13,000 in total expenses were avoided, which is in line with the findings from a report on the economic impact of medical errors sponsored by the Society of Actuaries.3 Furthermore, culture survey results improved by 6% between 2015 and 2017, coinciding with the Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award program. CONCLUSIONS: The Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award has proven to be a valuable tool in recognizing staff awareness and willingness to raise concerns about quality and safety in health care. Data analysis from this program presents evidence that fostering a psychologically safe culture of speaking up yields fiscal and humanistic returns, both of which are crucial to sustainable, meaningful progress in safety and quality. However, further research is required to adequately gauge the degree to which safety culture improvement is proportional to cost savings.

Taking the blame: appropriate responses to medical error.

Medical errors are all too common. Ever since a report issued by the Institute of Medicine raised awareness of this unfortunate reality, an emerging theme has gained prominence in the literature on medical error. Fears of blame and punishment, it is often claimed, allow errors to remain undisclosed. Accordingly, modern healthcare must shift away from blame towards a culture of safety in order to effectively reduce the occurrence of error. Against this shift, I argue that it would serve the medical community well to retain notions of individual responsibility and blame in healthcare settings. In particular, expressions of moral emotions-such as guilt, regret and remorse-appear to play an important role in the process of disclosing harmful errors to patients and families. While such self-blaming responses can have negative psychological effects on the individual practitioner, those who take the blame are in the best position to offer apologies and show that mistakes are being taken seriously, thereby allowing harmed patients and families to move forward in the wake of medical error.