Factors impacting on the decision of graduate entry medical school students to pursue a career in obstetrics and gynecology in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Challenges in recruiting appropriately trained obstetricians and gynaecologists have been identified across the world. Given well documented staff shortages within obstetrics and gynaecology in Ireland, it is increasingly important to understand the factors which influence medical students to choose or reject a career in the speciality. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perceptions of final year graduate entry medical students of obstetrics and gynaecology, including the factors which may influence a student's decision to pursue in a career in the speciality. METHODS: Paper-based surveys of graduate entry medical students (n = 146) were conducted at the beginning and end of a six week rotation in obstetrics and gynaecology in Ireland. Responses to the surveys pre- and post-rotation were matched and changes in career choices, merits and demerits over time were analysed. All analysis was conducted using SPSS for Windows version 25. RESULTS: The responses of 72 students to both questionnaires could be matched (response rate of 49.3%). No male students expressed an interest in obstetrics, gynaecology or both as a first choice of career in the pre rotation survey. Obstetrics as a first choice of career increased from 6.9% pre rotation to 19.4% post rotation (p = 0.04) and this increase was seen in male and female students. Gynaecology as a first choice increased slightly from 1.4 to 4.2% (p = 0.50) and the dual speciality increased from 6.9 to 13.9% (p = 0.23). Students identified many merits of obstetrics pre-rotation with more than 60% identifying it as exciting, interesting fulfilling and challenging. However, incompatibility with family life was cited as a demerit by 72% of respondents and 68.1% identified fear of litigation as a demerit. Participants were less positive overall about the merits of a career in gynaecology with less than 40% viewing it as exciting, fulfilling, and varied. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents were positive about the merits of a career in obstetrics and gynecology, concerns remain about work-life balance, career opportunities, and the high-risk nature of the specialty. These concerns should be addressed by the profession and policy makers if they wish to attract sufficient numbers to address anticipated need in the coming years. Gender differences in speciality choice were also evident. If males are to be recruited into obstetrics and gynaecology, consideration should be given to the positive impact of internship.

Plaintiff aims in medical negligence disputes: limitations of an adversarial system.

The adversarial nature of medical negligence litigation is subject to frequent criticism by the media, patient advocates, and scholars. In Ireland, reform of the medical negligence dynamic is often mooted, particularly in response to the high financial costs of this type of litigation; however, change in this area has been slow. Recently, the Irish courts have dealt with a number of high-profile, medical negligence disputes, including claims for those affected by the CervicalCheck controversy, which involved the failure to disclose the results of a retrospective audit to women who had developed cervical cancer. These cases have again highlighted the shortcomings of an adversarial system. This article explores the limitations of the tort system in the context of plaintiff aims in medical negligence disputes, drawing on empirical findings (qualitative interviews with patient support groups and barristers), and the literature. In doing so, the article argues that while financial compensation is necessary and appropriate in cases of medical negligence, the current system fails to recognise the often emotional nature of these claims, and the wider needs and aims of litigants involved in these disputes.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Legal Preparedness: Lessons from Ireland.

Ireland has been a leader in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in the EU, with almost 80% of the eligible population (aged over 5 years) fully vaccinated at the time of writing. The success of the vaccine rollout in this jurisdiction notwithstanding, the legal frameworks supporting the rollout had significant lacunas. Two aspects in particular highlighted a lack of legal preparedness: the inadequacy of the legal framework for consent and the absence of a vaccine injury redress scheme. This paper explores these components of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout through the lens of legal preparedness. Whilst most often discussed in the context of command and control measures such as social distancing requirements and regional lockdowns, this paper argues for an expanded understanding of what it means to be legally prepared, highlighting the importance of the preparedness of domestic legal frameworks.

An Exploratory Study of the Impact of the Medico-Legal Environment on Surgical Practice in Ireland.

Defensive medicine describes behaviours engaged in by physicians, for the purposes of averting the threat of medical negligence litigation and/or complaints. Defensive practice typically encompasses 'assurance' or 'avoidance' behaviours, or 'positive' or 'negative' defensive medicine. Assurance behaviours include, for example, meticulous notetaking and ordering further clinically unnecessary tests, whereas avoidance behaviours encompass actions such as refusing to engage with a patient perceived to be high-risk. Whilst such practices may be understandable, defensive medicine is problematic for a number of reasons: it may result in a lower standard of patient care, where for example, a patient is exposed to unnecessary risk(s); and it can increase healthcare costs, which in turn limits resources. Drawing on the findings of a survey of surgeons in Ireland, this study investigates the existence of defensive practices, and explores the impact of the civil and regulatory responses to patient safety incidents on surgical practice. Given the increasing emphasis on patient safety and cultivating a "no-blame" culture both nationally and internationally, the findings of this research illustrate the tension between the current medico-legal and regulatory environment and medical practice, with implications for quality and safety.

Medical Negligence Litigation and Apologies: An Empirical Examination.

Research has evidenced the various aims of patient-plaintiffs and/or their families in medical negligence litigation, with emphasis frequently placed on the importance of an apology. Drawing on the findings of an empirical study conducted in Ireland, this article contributes to the discourse on apologies in medical negligence disputes. In particular, with reference to the findings of the research and the literature, it discusses components of apologies deemed to be important by patient-plaintiffs and/or their families. The article concludes by arguing that legislative protection for apologies in isolation will not necessarily increase the use or effectiveness of apologies in medical negligence disputes, and a combination of measures is required.

How different countries respond to adverse events whilst patients' rights are protected.

Patient safety is high on the policy agenda internationally. Learning from safety incidents is a core component in achieving the important goal of increasing patient safety. This study explores the legal frameworks in the countries to promote reporting, disclosure, and supporting healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in safety incidents. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to ascertain an overview of the legal frameworks at national level, as well as relevant policies. ERNST (The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims) group peer-reviewed data collected from countries was performed to validate information. Information from 27 countries was collected and analyzed, giving a response rate of 60%. A reporting system for patient safety incidents was in place in 85.2% (N = 23) of countries surveyed, though few (37%, N = 10) were focused on systems-learning. In about half of the countries (48.1%, N = 13) open disclosure depends on the initiative of HCPs. The tort liability system was common in most countries. No-fault compensation schemes and alternative forms of redress were less common. Support for HCPs involved in patient safety incidents was extremely limited, with just 11.1% (N = 3) of participating countries reporting that supports were available in all healthcare institutions. Despite progress in the patient safety movement worldwide, the findings suggest that there are considerable differences in the approach to the reporting and disclosure of patient safety incidents. Additionally, models of compensation vary limiting patients' access to redress. Finally, the results highlight the need for comprehensive support for HCPs involved in safety incidents.

The Second Victim: A Contested Term?

OBJECTIVES: The term "second victim" was seminally coined by Wu, in recognition of the profound and long-lasting impact adverse events and medical errors may have on medical practitioners. Since the conception of this vocable over a decade ago, the term second victim has been internationally accepted and is widely used in discussion of this important topic. Notwithstanding its widespread use, controversy surrounds the term second victim in light of the traditional connotations with the word "victim." However, notable in their absence are the views of medical practitioners on the use of this term. This article addresses this gap through an exploration of perceptions on the terminology used to describe physicians who experience distress after an adverse event or medical error. METHODS: This research arose as part of a wider study on the dynamic of medical negligence litigation in Ireland. The study used a qualitative approach, using semistructured interviews as the data gathering instrument. The sample involved representatives of medical training bodies (2 individual interviews and 1 focus group of 4 individuals) and legal professionals (barristers) (12 individual interviews). Those interviewed from medical training bodies were physicians who have an active role in the college providing training and support to their members. RESULTS: A number of participants shared their views on the term second victim, and the findings of this study suggest that some physicians and legal professionals are uncomfortable with the term second victim despite its widespread use in other jurisdictions. This is due to the traditional connotations that surround the term victim, and the perception that being labeled a victim may undermine the harm experienced by the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Although the impact of adverse events and medical error on the physician is undisputed, use of the term second victim can be seen as insensitive to the patient, as well as dissipating the professional identity of the healthcare provider. Second victim is an internationally recognized term, as coined by Wu (2000). Finding an appropriate replacement is an important but difficult task.

An International Perspective on Definitions and Terminology Used to Describe Serious Reportable Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients are unintentionally, yet frequently, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet there is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient safety incidents. METHODS: Multiple electronic and gray literature databases were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 50 articles were included. There was wide variation in the terminology used to represent serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if appropriate safety measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient safety incident: (1) incidents being largely preventable; (2) having the potential for significant learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious harm; (4) being identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.