Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Long-Term Impacts Faced by Patients and Families After Harmful Healthcare Events.

BACKGROUND: Patients and families report experiencing a multitude of harms from medical errors resulting in physical, emotional, and financial hardships. Little is known about the duration and nature of these harms and the type of support needed to promote patient and family healing after such events. We sought to describe the long-term impacts (LTIs) reported by patients and family members who experienced harmful medical events 5 or more years ago. METHODS: We performed a content analysis on 32 interviews originally conducted with 72 patients or family members about their views of the factors contributing to their self-reported harmful event. Interviews selected occurred 5 or more years after the harmful event and were grouped by time since event, 5 to 9 years (22 interviews) or 10 or more years (10 interviews) for analysis. We analyzed these interviews targeting spontaneous references of ongoing impacts experienced by the participants. RESULTS: Participants collectively described the following four LTIs: psychological, social/behavioral, physical, and financial. Most cited psychological impacts with half-reporting ongoing anger and vivid memories. More than half reported ongoing physical impacts and one-third experienced ongoing financial impacts. Long-term social and behavioral impacts such as alterations in lifestyle, self-identity, and healthcare seeking behaviors were the most highly reported. CONCLUSIONS: These patients and families experienced many profound LTIs after their harmful medical event. For some, these impacts evolved into secondary harms ongoing 10 years and more after the event. Our results draw attention to the persistent impacts patients and families may experience long after harmful events and the need for future research to understand and support affected patients and families.

Association of open communication and the emotional and behavioural impact of medical error on patients and families: state-wide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: How openly healthcare providers communicate after a medical error may influence long-term impacts. We sought to understand whether greater open communication is associated with fewer persisting emotional impacts, healthcare avoidance and loss of trust. METHODS: Cross-sectional 2018 recontact survey assessing experience with medical error in a 2017 random digit dial survey of Massachusetts residents. Two hundred and fifty-three respondents self-reported medical error. Respondents were similar to non-respondents in sociodemographics confirming minimal response bias. Time since error was categorised as <1, 1-2 or 3-6 years before interview. Open communication was measured with six questions assessing different communication elements. Persistent impacts included emotional (eg, sadness, anger), healthcare avoidance (specific providers or all medical care) and loss of trust in healthcare. Logistic regressions examined the association between open communication and long-term impacts. RESULTS: Of respondents self-reporting a medical error 3-6 years ago, 51% reported at least one current emotional impact; 57% reported avoiding doctor/facilities involved in error; 67% reported loss of trust. Open communication varied: 34% reported no communication and 24% reported ≥5 elements. Controlling for error severity, respondents reporting the most open communication had significantly lower odds of persisting sadness (OR=0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60, p=0.006), depression (OR=0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.77, p=0.022) or feeling abandoned/betrayed (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48, p=0.004) compared with respondents reporting no communication. Open communication significantly predicted less doctor/facility avoidance, but was not associated with medical care avoidance or healthcare trust. CONCLUSIONS: Negative emotional impacts from medical error can persist for years. Open communication is associated with reduced emotional impacts and decreased avoidance of doctors/facilities involved in the error. Communication and resolution programmes could facilitate transparent conversations and reduce some of the negative impacts of medical error.

Third Things as Inspiration and Artifact: A Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Approach to Understand Patient and Family Emotions after Harmful Events.

Patient and family emotional harm after medical errors may be profound. At an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conference to establish a research agenda on this topic, the authors used visual images as a gateway to personal reflections among diverse stakeholders. Themes identified included chaos and turmoil, profound isolation, organizational denial, moral injury and betrayal, negative effects on families and communities, importance of relational skills, and healing effects of human connection. The exercise invited storytelling, enabled psychological safety, and fostered further collaborative discussion. The authors discuss implications for quality/safety, educational innovation, and qualitative research.

Increasing Patient-Clinician Concordance About Medical Error Disclosure Through the Patient TIPS Model.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether an educational model involving patients and family members (P/F) in medical error disclosure training for interprofessional clinicians can narrow existing gaps between clinician and P/F views about disclosure. METHOD: Parallel presurveys/postsurveys using Likert scale questions for clinicians and P/F. RESULTS: Baseline surveys were completed by 91% (50/55) of clinicians who attended the workshops and 74% (65/88) of P/F from a hospital patient and family advisory council. P/F's baseline views about disclosure were significantly different from clinicians' in 70% (7/10) of the disclosure expectation items and 100% (3/3) of the disclosure vignette items. For example, compared with clinicians, P/F more strongly agreed that "patients want to know all the details of what happened" and more strongly disagreed that "patients find explanation(s) more confusing than helpful." In the medication error vignette, compared with clinicians, P/F more strongly agreed that the error should be disclosed and that the patient would want to know and more strongly disagreed that disclosure would do more harm than good (all P < 0.05). After the workshop, P/F and clinician views about information sharing, fallibility, truth telling, and threshold for disclosure showed greater concordance, with significant differences remaining in less than half of the expectation items and none of the vignette responses. DISCUSSION: Even with self-selecting clinicians, collaborative learning with P/F highlights important differences in patient and clinician baseline perspectives about medical error disclosure and brings patient and clinicians views closer together.

Can Communication-And-Resolution Programs Achieve Their Potential? Five Key Questions.

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) are intended to promote accountability, transparency, and learning after adverse events. In this article we address five key challenges to the programs' future success: implementation fidelity, the evidence base for CRPs and their link to patient safety, fair compensation of harmed patients, alignment of CRP design with participants' needs, and public policy on CRPs. While the field has arrived at an understanding of the core communication-and-resolution practices, limited adherence fuels skepticism that programs are meeting the needs of patients and families who have been injured by care or improving patient safety. Adherence to communication-and-resolution practices could be enhanced by adopting measures of CRP quality and implementing programs in a comprehensive, principled, and systematic manner. Of particular importance is offering fair compensation to patients in CRPs and supporting their right to attorney representation. There is evidence that the use of CRPs reduces liability costs, but research on other outcomes is limited. Additional research is especially needed on the links between CRPs and quality and on the programs' alignment with patients' and families' needs. By honoring principles of transparency, quality improvement, and patient and family empowerment, organizations can use their CRPs to help revitalize the medical profession.

A Multi-Stakeholder Consensus-Driven Research Agenda for Better Understanding and Supporting the Emotional Impact of Harmful Events on Patients and Families.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: A one-day conference of diverse stakeholder groups to establish a consensus-driven research agenda focused on (1) priorities for research on the short-term and long-term emotional impact of harmful events on patients and families, (2) barriers and enablers to conducting such research, and (3) actionable steps toward better supporting harmed patients and families now. RESULTS: Stakeholders discussed 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. Stakeholder groups reached consensus, defining four research priorities: (1) Establish conceptual framework and patient-centered taxonomy of harm and healing; (2) Describe epidemiology of emotional harm; (3) Determine how to make emotional harm and long-term impacts visible to health care organizations and society at large; and (4) Develop and implement best practices for emotional support of patients and families. 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. CONCLUSION: Emotional and other long-term impacts of harmful events can have profound consequences for patients and families. Stakeholders designed a path forward to inform approaches that better support harmed patients and families, with both immediately actionable and longer-term research strategies.

Transparency When Things Go Wrong: Physician Attitudes About Reporting Medical Errors to Patients, Peers, and Institutions.

OBJECTIVES: Transparent communication after medical error includes disclosing the mistake to the patient, discussing the event with colleagues, and reporting to the institution. Little is known about whether attitudes about these transparency practices are related. Understanding these relationships could inform educational and organizational strategies to promote transparency. METHODS: We analyzed responses of 3038 US and Canadian physicians to a medical error communication survey. We used bivariate correlations, principal components analysis, and linear regression to determine whether and how physician attitudes about transparent communication with patients, peers, and the institution after error were related. RESULTS: Physician attitudes about disclosing errors to patients, peers, and institutions were correlated (all P's < 0.001) and represented 2 principal components analysis factors, namely, communication with patients and communication with peers/institution. Predictors of attitudes supporting transparent communication with patients and peers/institution included female sex, US (vs Canadian) doctors, academic (vs private) practice, the belief that disclosure decreased likelihood of litigation, and the belief that system changes occur after error reporting. In addition, younger physicians, surgeons, and those with previous experience disclosing a serious error were more likely to agree with disclosure to patients. In comparison, doctors who believed that disclosure would decrease patient trust were less likely to agree with error disclosure to patients. Previous disclosure education was associated with attitudes supporting greater transparency with peers/institution. CONCLUSIONS: Physician attitudes about discussing errors with patients, colleagues, and institutions are related. Several predictors of transparency affect all 3 practices and are potentially modifiable by educational and institutional strategies.

Patients as Partners in Learning from Unexpected Events.

IMPORTANCE: Patient safety experts believe that patients/family members should be involved in adverse event review. However, it is unclear how aware patients/family members are about the causes of adverse events they experienced. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients/family members interviewed could identify at least one contributing factor for the event they experienced. Secondary objectives included understanding the way patients/family members became aware of adverse events, the types of contributing factors patients/family members identified for different types of adverse events, and recommendations provided by patients/family members to address the contributing factors. DESIGN: We interviewed patients/family members using semistructured interviews to understand their perceptions about why these adverse events occurred. The adverse events occurred between 1991 and 2014. SETTING: Participants described adverse events that occurred in various types of health care organizations (i.e., hospitals, ambulatory facilities/clinics, and dental clinics). PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 72 patients and family members who each described a unique adverse event. Eligibility requirements were that patients/family members spoke English or Spanish and were aware of an adverse event that happened to them or a loved one. INTERVENTION(S) FOR CLINICAL TRIALS OR EXPOSURE(S) FOR OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): The main outcome was determining whether patients/family members could identify at least one contributing factor they perceived as related to the adverse event they described. RESULTS: Each participant identified at least one contributing factor and on average identified 3.67 contributing factors for their event. The most frequently mentioned contributing factors were Staff Qualifications/Knowledge (79 percent), Safety Policies/Procedures (74 percent), and Communication (64 percent). Participants knew about the contributing factors from personal observation only (32 percent), personal reasoning (11 percent), personal research (7 percent), record review (either their own medical records or reports they received in their own investigation; 6 percent), and being told by a physician (5 percent). Finally, patients/family members were able to provide recommendations that address each of the nine contributing factors we examined. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients/family members identified contributing factors related to their adverse event. Given that these contributing factors might not be known to health care organizations because most participants stated that they were not involved in the analysis process, opportunities for organizational learning from patients are potentially being missed. Health care organizations should interview patients/family about the event that harmed them to help ensure a full understanding of the causes of the event.

Patients and families as teachers: a mixed methods assessment of a collaborative learning model for medical error disclosure and prevention.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing interest in engaging patients and families (P/F) in patient safety education, little is known about how P/F can best contribute. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a patient-teacher medical error disclosure and prevention training model. METHODS: We developed an educational intervention bringing together interprofessional clinicians with P/F from hospital advisory councils to discuss error disclosure and prevention. Patient focus groups and orientation sessions informed curriculum and assessment design. A pre-post survey with qualitative and quantitative questions was used to assess P/F and clinician experiences and attitudes about collaborative safety education including participant hopes, fears, perceived value of learning experience and challenges. Responses to open-ended questions were coded according to principles of content analysis. RESULTS: P/F and clinicians hoped to learn about each other's perspectives, communication skills and patient empowerment strategies. Before the intervention, both groups worried about power dynamics dampening effective interaction. Clinicians worried that P/F would learn about their fallibility, while P/F were concerned about clinicians' jargon and defensive posturing. Following workshops, clinicians valued patients' direct feedback, communication strategies for error disclosure and a 'real' learning experience. P/F appreciated clinicians' accountability, and insights into how medical errors affect clinicians. Half of participants found nothing challenging, the remainder clinicians cited emotions and enormity of 'culture change', while P/F commented on medical jargon and desire for more time. Patients and clinicians found the experience valuable. Recommendations about how to develop a patient-teacher programme in patient safety are provided. CONCLUSIONS: An educational paradigm that includes patients as teachers and collaborative learners with clinicians in patient safety is feasible, valued by clinicians and P/F and promising for P/F-centred medical error disclosure and prevention training.

Opening Residents' Notes to Patients: A Qualitative Study of Resident and Faculty Physician Attitudes on Open Notes Implementation in Graduate Medical Education.

PURPOSE: OpenNotes is a growing national initiative inviting patients to read clinician progress notes (open notes) through a secure electronic portal. The goals of this study were to (1) identify resident and faculty preceptor attitudes about sharing notes with patients, and (2) assess specific educational needs, policy recommendations, and approaches to facilitate open notes implementation. METHOD: This was a qualitative study using focus groups with residents and faculty physicians who supervise residents, representing primary care, general surgery, surgical and procedural specialties, and nonprocedural specialties, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Geisinger Health System in spring 2013. Data were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, then coded and organized into themes. RESULTS: Thirty-six clinicians (24 [66.7%] residents and 12 [33.3%] faculty physicians) participated. Four main themes emerged: (1) implications of full transparency, (2) note audiences and ideology, (3) trust between patients and doctors, and (4) time pressures. Residents and faculty discussed how open notes might yield more engaged patients and better notes but were concerned about the time needed to edit notes and respond to patient inquiries. Residents were uncertain how much detail they should share with patients and were concerned about the potential to harm the patient-doctor relationship. Residents and faculty offered several recommendations for open notes implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants were ambivalent about resident participation in open notes. Residents and faculty identified clinical and educational benefits to open notes but were concerned about potential effects on the patient-doctor relationship, requirements for oversight, and increased workload and burnout.

Wisdom in Medicine: What Helps Physicians After a Medical Error?

PURPOSE: Confronting medical error openly is critical to organizational learning, but less is known about what helps individual clinicians learn and adapt positively after making a harmful mistake. Understanding what factors help doctors gain wisdom can inform educational and peer support programs, and may facilitate the development of specific tools to assist doctors after harmful errors occur. METHOD: Using "posttraumatic growth" as a model, the authors conducted semistructured interviews (2009-2011) with 61 physicians who had made a serious medical error. Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed, and coded by two study team members (kappa 0.8) using principles of grounded theory and NVivo software. Coders also scored interviewees as wisdom exemplars or nonexemplars based on Ardelt's three-dimensional wisdom model. RESULTS: Of the 61 physicians interviewed, 33 (54%) were male, and on average, eight years had elapsed since the error. Wisdom exemplars were more likely to report disclosing the error to the patient/family (69%) than nonexemplars (38%); P < .03. Fewer than 10% of all participants reported receiving disclosure training. Investigators identified eight themes reflecting what helped physician wisdom exemplars cope positively: talking about it, disclosure and apology, forgiveness, a moral context, dealing with imperfection, learning/becoming an expert, preventing recurrences/improving teamwork, and helping others/teaching. CONCLUSIONS: The path forged by doctors who coped well with medical error highlights specific ways to help clinicians move through this difficult experience so that they avoid devastating professional outcomes and have the best chance of not just recovery but positive growth.

Should we tell parents when we've made an error?

One of the most difficult experiences for any doctor or nurse is when they realize that they have made a mistake that has harmed a patient. In the past, mistakes were seldom disclosed to patients. The prevailing ethos was one of professional silence, secrecy, and shame. That has begun to change. Many professional organizations in both medicine and health law recommend full disclosure of mistakes and apologies for the harm that is caused. An atmosphere of openness and honesty leads to a culture of quality and safety. In this Ethics Rounds, we analyze the complex emotional and ethical issues that arise when doctors recognize that an error has occurred.

Structuring patient and family involvement in medical error event disclosure and analysis.

The study of adverse event disclosure has typically focused on the words that are said to the patient and family members after an event. But there is also growing interest in determining how patients and their families can be involved in the analysis of the adverse events that harmed them. We conducted a two-phase study to understand whether patients and families who have experienced an adverse event should be involved in the postevent analysis following the disclosure of a medical error. We first conducted twenty-eight interviews with patients, family members, clinicians, and administrators to determine the extent to which patients and family members are included in event analysis processes and to learn how their experiences might be improved. Then we reviewed our interview findings with patients and health care experts at a one-day national conference in October 2011. After evaluating the findings, conference participants concluded that increasing the involvement of patients and their families in the event analysis process was desirable but needed to be structured in a patient-centered way to be successful. We conclude by describing when and how information from patients might be incorporated into the event analysis process and by offering recommendations on how this might be accomplished.

Disclosure, apology, and offer programs: stakeholders' views of barriers to and strategies for broad implementation.

CONTEXT: The Disclosure, Apology, and Offer (DA&O) model, a response to patient injuries caused by medical care, is an innovative approach receiving national attention for its early success as an alternative to the existing inherently adversarial, inefficient, and inequitable medical liability system. Examples of DA&O programs, however, are few. METHODS: Through key informant interviews, we investigated the potential for more widespread implementation of this model by provider organizations and liability insurers, defining barriers to implementation and strategies for overcoming them. Our study focused on Massachusetts, but we also explored themes that are broadly generalizable to other states. FINDINGS: We found strong support for the DA&O model among key stakeholders, who cited its benefits for both the liability system and patient safety. The respondents did not perceive any insurmountable barriers to broad implementation, and they identified strategies that could be pursued relatively quickly. Such solutions would permit a range of organizations to implement the model without legislative hurdles. CONCLUSIONS: Although more data are needed about the outcomes of DA&O programs, the model holds considerable promise for transforming the current approach to medical liability and patient safety.

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead.

BACKGROUND: Little information exists about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients experience if patients are invited to read their doctors' office notes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on doctors and patients of facilitating patient access to visit notes over secure Internet portals. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental trial of PCPs and patient volunteers in a year-long program that provided patients with electronic links to their doctors' notes. SETTING: Primary care practices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Massachusetts, Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC) in Washington. PARTICIPANTS: 105 PCPs and 13,564 of their patients who had at least 1 completed note available during the intervention period. MEASUREMENTS: Portal use and electronic messaging by patients and surveys focusing on participants' perceptions of behaviors, benefits, and negative consequences. RESULTS: 11,155 [corrected] of 13,564 patients with visit notes available opened at least 1 note (84% at BIDMC, 82% [corrected] at GHS, and 47% at HMC). Of 5219 [corrected] patients who opened at least 1 note and completed a postintervention survey, 77% to 59% [corrected] across the 3 sites reported that open notes helped them feel more in control of their care; 60% to 78% of those taking medications reported increased medication adherence; 26% to 36% had privacy concerns; 1% to 8% reported that the notes caused confusion, worry, or offense; and 20% to 42% reported sharing notes with others. The volume of electronic messages from patients did not change. After the intervention, few doctors reported longer visits (0% to 5%) or more time addressing patients' questions outside of visits (0% to 8%), with practice size having little effect; 3% to 36% of doctors reported changing documentation content; and 0% to 21% reported taking more time writing notes. Looking ahead, 59% to 62% of patients believed that they should be able to add comments to a doctor's note. One out of 3 patients believed that they should be able to approve the notes' contents, but 85% to 96% of doctors did not agree. At the end of the experimental period, 99% of patients wanted open notes to continue and no doctor elected to stop. LIMITATIONS: Only 3 geographic areas were represented, and most participants were experienced in using portals. Doctors volunteering to participate and patients using portals and completing surveys may tend to offer favorable feedback, and the response rate of the patient surveys (41%) may further limit generalizability. CONCLUSION: Patients accessed visit notes frequently, a large majority reported clinically relevant benefits and minimal concerns, and virtually all patients wanted the practice to continue. With doctors experiencing no more than a modest effect on their work lives, open notes seem worthy of widespread adoption. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Drane Family Fund, the Richard and Florence Koplow Charitable Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.

Error disclosure: a new domain for safety culture assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) develop and test survey items that measure error disclosure culture, (2) examine relationships among error disclosure culture, teamwork culture and safety culture and (3) establish predictive validity for survey items measuring error disclosure culture. METHOD: All clinical faculty from six health institutions (four medical schools, one cancer centre and one health science centre) in The University of Texas System were invited to anonymously complete an electronic survey containing questions about safety culture and error disclosure. RESULTS: The authors found two factors to measure error disclosure culture: one factor is focused on the general culture of error disclosure and the second factor is focused on trust. Both error disclosure culture factors were unique from safety culture and teamwork culture (correlations were less than r=0.85). Also, error disclosure general culture and error disclosure trust culture predicted intent to disclose a hypothetical error to a patient (r=0.25, p<0.001 and r=0.16, p<0.001, respectively) while teamwork and safety culture did not predict such an intent (r=0.09, p=NS and r=0.12, p=NS). Those who received prior error disclosure training reported significantly higher levels of error disclosure general culture (t=3.7, p<0.05) and error disclosure trust culture (t=2.9, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The authors created and validated a new measure of error disclosure culture that predicts intent to disclose an error better than other measures of healthcare culture. This measure fills an existing gap in organisational assessments by assessing transparent communication after medical error, an important aspect of culture.

Accountability for medical error: moving beyond blame to advocacy.

Accountability in medicine, once assigned primarily to individual doctors, is today increasingly shared by groups of health-care providers. Because patient safety experts emphasize that most errors are caused not by individual providers, but rather by system breakdowns in complex health-care teams, individual doctors are left to wonder where their accountability lies. Increasingly, teams deliver care. But patients and doctors alike still think of accountability in individual terms, and the law often measures it that way. Drawing on an example of delayed lung cancer diagnosis, we describe the mismatch between how we view errors (systems) and how we apportion blame (individuals). We discuss "collective accountability," suggesting that this construct may offer a way to balance a "just culture" and a doctor's specific responsibilities within the framework of team delivery of care. The concept of collective accountability requires doctors to adopt transparent behaviors, learn new skills for improving team performance, and participate in institutional safety initiatives to evaluate errors and implement plans for preventing recurrences. It also means that institutions need to prioritize team training, develop robust, nonpunitive reporting systems, support clinicians after adverse events and medical error, and develop ways to compensate patients who are harmed by errors. A conceptual leap to collective accountability may help overcome longstanding professional and societal norms that not only reinforce individual blame and impede patient safety but may also leave the patient and family without a true advocate.