Validation of a scale to assess adherence to oral chemotherapy based on the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals (EXPAD-ANEO).

Background: Lack of adherence to Oral antineoplastic agents (OAAs) treatment has important clinical, social and economic consequences. Objective: To develop and validate a novel instrument for assessing adherence to OAAs, based on the reported experiences of people with cancer in relation to their treatment and the opinions of the healthcare professionals who care for them. Methods: We performed a multicenter validation study of a scale designed to assess adherence to OAAs. First, a steering committee developed the items for an initial scale, based on the results of a qualitative study that evaluated patients' and professionals' experiences with this treatment. We then assessed the validity and reliability of the initial scale in a sample of 268 outpatients with cancer who received their OAAs from four Spanish hospitals. Results: The mean age of the sample of 268 outpatients was 64.1 (standard deviation [SD] 12.4) years, and 47% of participants were women. With the results of this analysis, we developed the EXPAD-ANEO scale, which has 2 factors, one for beliefs and expectations and another for behavior. Both factors explain 52% of the explained common variance. Good reliability was obtained, with a McDonald's omega of 0.7 for the first factor and 0.6 for the second factor. The fit indices were optimal (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.02, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Tucker Lexis Index = 0.99 and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual = 0.03), which verifies the appropriateness of the items to the model. We measured EXPAD-ANEO criterion validity against pill count, obtaining a specificity of 80%. We measured convergent validity with the Morisky-Green test and found a significant association (p < 0.001). We measured divergent validity with questions on health literacy from the 16-item European Health Literacy Survey and found no correlation (p = 0.153). Conclusion: EXPAD-ANEO is the first validated instrument for evaluating patients' experiences with and adherence to OAAs, providing valuable information that can help health professionals to establish individual strategies or collective programs for improving therapeutic results and reducing healthcare costs.

PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study.

Background: Opportunistic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false positive results, biopsy complications and overdiagnosis. Although different organisations have emphasised the importance of shared decision making (SDM) to assist men in deciding whether to undergo prostate cancer screening, recent evaluations show that the available decision aids fail to facilitate SDM, mainly because they do not consider the patients' perspective in their design. We aim to systematically develop and test a patient decision aid to promote SDM in prostate cancer screening, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods: (1) Feasibility study: a quantitative survey evaluating the population and clinician (urologists and general practitioners) knowledge of the benefits and risks derived from PSA determination and the awareness of the available recommendations. Focus groups to explore the challenges patients and clinicians face when discussing prostate cancer screening, the relevance of a decision aid and how best to integrate it into practice. (2) Patient decision aid development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multicomponent SDM patient decision aid will be developed. (3) User-testing: an assessment of the prototype of the initial patient decision aid through a user-testing design based on mix-methods (questionnaire and semi-structured review). The decision aid will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. (4) Validation: an evaluation of the patient decision aid through a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Discussion: The designed patient decision aid will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and should help patients to consider their personal preferences and to take a more active role in decision making. Conclusions: The well-designed patient decision aid (PDA) will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and help patients consider their personal preferences.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adherence to Orally Administered Antineoplastics.

Background: Several factors can influence adherence to orally administered antineoplastics, including fear or anxiety resulting from situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of these patients' experiences on adherence to orally administered antineoplastics. Methods: Cross-sectional study in four hospitals including >18 year old cancer patients receiving orally administered antineoplastics during the first half of 2021. Data were collected from medical records and through telephone interviews. Adherence was assessed through the prescription refill records and pill counts. Patients' fear resulting from the pandemic was assessed by means of a structured questionnaire using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Results: Our sample compr BARCELONAised 268 patients (54% men) with a mean age of 64 years (SD 12). More than 15% had experienced afraid and 5% had experienced a dangerous situation when attending hospital, 17% felt they had received less care, and 30% preferred telepharmacy. Adherence measured by pill count was 69.3% and 95.5% according to prescription refill records. Patients who had experienced fear or anxiety when attending hospital were less adherent (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23−0.96, p = 0.039). Conclusion: The fear experienced by some patients has affected adherence to treatment.

A Web-Based Self-assessment Model for Evaluating Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Spain: Development and Validation Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor boards constitute the main consensus and clinical decision-making body of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care. With the increasing clinical complexity of treatment options (eg, targeted therapies, multimodal treatments) and the progressive incorporation of new areas of intervention (eg, survivorship care), tumor boards are now required to play a central role in all cancer processes. However, although frameworks are in place to evaluate MDT quality, only few web-based tools are available for this purpose; indeed, no web-based MDT evaluation tools have been developed for or adapted to the Spanish National Health System. OBJECTIVE: The first aim of this study was to develop a web-based self-assessment model (Autoevaluación de Equipos Multidisciplinares de Atención al Cáncer [AEMAC]) for evaluating multidisciplinary cancer teams in Spain and the second aim was to validate this tool by testing its metric properties, acceptability, and usability. METHODS: We designed and validated the AEMAC program in 3 stages. In the first stage (research), we reviewed the available scientific evidence and performed a qualitative case study of good practice in multidisciplinary care within the Spanish National Health System (n=4 centers and 28 health care professionals). The results were used to define the thematic areas and quality criteria for the self-evaluation model, which were then discussed and validated by a group of experts. The second stage (development) involved the technological development of a web app that would be accessible from any mobile device. In the third stage (piloting and validation), we conducted 4 pilot tests (n=15 tumor boards, 243 professionals) and used the results to analyze the acceptability and usefulness of the tool. RESULTS: We designed a self-assessment model based on 5 thematic areas encompassing a total of 25 quality components, which users rated on a 3-option development scale. The evaluation process, which was managed entirely from the web app, consisted of individual self-assessment, group prioritization, and creation of an improvement plan. Cronbach alpha (.86), McDonald's omega (0.88), and various fit indices (comparative fit index between 0.95 and 1 and goodness-of-fit index between 0.97 and 0.99 for all 5 aspects) confirmed internal consistency. The mean rating for overall satisfaction with the tool and for consistency between the content of the tool and the reality of tumor boards was 7.6 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained during the period of research and piloting of the AEMAC program showed that it has an appropriate structure and metric properties and could therefore be implemented in a real context and generalized to other hospitals. As a virtual tool, it helps to measure the key aspects of MDT quality, such as effectiveness of collaboration and communication, leadership, and the organizational environment.

Medication Experience and Adherence to Oral Chemotherapy: A Qualitative Study of Patients' and Health Professionals' Perspectives.

Lack of adherence constitutes one of the most important challenges in patients undergoing treatment with oral antineoplastic drugs (ANEO). Understanding cancer patients' experiences with respect to their medication is key for optimizing adherence and therapeutic results. We aimed to assess the medication experience (ME) in patients with cancer in treatment with ANEO, to describe the barriers and facilitators related to the disease and its treatment and to compare them with the healthcare professionals' perspectives. We carried out an exploratory qualitative study in the University Hospital of San Juan de Alicante, Spain. Three focus groups and two nominal group discussions were conducted with 23 onco-hematological patients treated with ANEO and 18 health professionals, respectively. The data were analyzed using content analyses and were eventually triangulated. The most impactful aspects in patients' ME were the presence of adverse effects; lack of information about treatment; beliefs, needs and expectations regarding medications; social and family support; and the relationship with the health professionals. Both patients and professionals agreed on considering the negative side effects and the information about treatment as the main barriers and facilitators of adherence, respectively, although the approaches differed between both profiles. The professionals offered a more technical vision while patients prioritized the emotional burden and motivation associated with the disease and medication. This study allowed us to understand the real-life experiences of patients being treated with ANEO and explore the factors which had an impact on adherence to treatment. This understanding enables professionals to have a positive influence on patients' behavior and provide individualized care plans. Pharmacists' assistance is relevant to support patients' adherence and self-management.

Pain Standards for Accredited Healthcare Organizations (ACDON Project): A Mixed Methods Study.

Up to 50% of cancer patients and up to 90% of those in terminal stages experience pain associated with disease progression, poor quality of life, and social impact on caregivers. This study aimed to establish standards for the accreditation of oncological pain management in healthcare organizations. A mixed methods approach was used. First, a pragmatic literature review was conducted. Second, consensus between professionals and patients was reached using the Nominal Group and Delphi technique in a step that involved anesthesiologists, oncologists, family physicians, nurses, psychologists, patient representatives, and caregivers. Third, eight hospitals participated in a pilot assessment of the level of fulfillment of each standard. A total of 37 standards were extracted. The Nominal Group produced additional standards, of which 60 were included in Questionnaire 0 that was used in the Delphi Technique. Two Delphi voting rounds were performed to reach a high level of consensus, and involved 64 and 62 participants with response rates of 90% and 87%, respectively. Finally, 39 standards for the management of cancer pain were agreed upon. In the self-evaluation, the average range of compliance was between 56.4% and 100%. The consensus standards of the ACDON Project might improve the monitoring of cancer pain management. These standards satisfied the demands of professionals and patients and could be used for the accreditation of approaches in cancer pain management.

Why an Open Disclosure Procedure Is and Is not Followed After an Avoidable Adverse Event.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze the relationships between factors that contribute to healthcare professionals informing and apologizing to a patient after an avoidable adverse event (AAE). METHODS: A secondary study based on the analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study conducted in 2014 in Spain was performed. Health professionals from hospitals and primary care completed an online survey. RESULTS: The responses from 1087 front-line healthcare professionals were analyzed. The willingness of the professionals to fully disclose an AAE was greater among those who were backed by their institution (odds ratio [OR] = 72.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.5-140.3) and who had experience with that type of communication (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.3-4.5). An apology for the patient was more likely when there was institutional support (OR = 31.3, 95% CI = 14.4-68.2), the professional was not aware of lawsuits (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.2-6.1), and attributed most AAE to human error (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.1-4.2). The fear of lawsuits was determined by the lack of support from the center in disclosing AAE (OR = 5.5, 95% CI = 2.8-10.6) and the belief that being open would result in negative consequences (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1-3.6). CONCLUSIONS: The culture of safety, the experience of blame, and the expectations about the outcome from communicating an AAE to patients affect the frequency of open disclosure. Nurses are more willing than physicians to participate in open disclosure. Health care organizations must act to establish a framework of legal certainty for professionals.

Evaluating standards of care in psoriatic arthritis of the QUANTUM project (qualitative initiative to improve outcomes): results of an accreditation project in Spain.

In Spain, the QUANTUM project has been promoted to reduce variability in clinical practice and improve the care and quality of life of people with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by accrediting PsA units throughout the Spanish national health system. To present the results of this approach which sought to ensure an optimum level of quality for patients with PsA. Descriptive analysis of the self-assessments that the PsA units have carried out assessing their degree of compliance with the quality standards established in the QUANTUM project grouped into four blocks: shortening time to diagnosis; optimizing disease management; improving multidisciplinary collaboration; and improving patient monitoring. A total of 41 PsA units were self-evaluated. They met 64.1% of the defined quality standards. Optimize disease management obtained a higher level of standards compliance (72%) and improve multidisciplinary collaboration the lesser (63.9%). Accessibility to the treatments available for PsA in all hospitals was guaranteed (100%). Appropriate diagnostic equipment is available (97.6%). Compliance with specific quality standards leads to detect actions that should be implemented: quality of life assessment (9.8%), locomotor system assessment (12.2%), physical examination data record (14.6%), periodic cardiovascular risk assessment (17.1%). The QUANTUM project results make it possible to visualise how to care for patients with PsA is being developed in Spain. Problems identified in recent multinational reports are also identified in Spain.

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire (CSSQP) for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Development and Validation Study.

Colonoscopy services working in colorectal cancer screening programs must perform periodic controls to improve the quality based on patients' experiences. However, there are no validated instruments in this setting that include the two core dimensions for optimal care: satisfaction and safety. The aim of this study was to design and validate a specific questionnaire for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test, the Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patients' experience (CSSQP). The design included a review of available evidence and used focus groups to identify the relevant dimensions to produce the instrument (content validity). Face validity was analyzed involving 15 patients. Reliability and construct and empirical validity were calculated. Validation involved patients from the colorectal cancer screening program at two referral hospitals in Spain. The CSSQP version 1 consisted of 15 items. The principal components analysis of the satisfaction items isolated three factors with saturation of elements above 0.52 and with high internal consistency and split-half readability: Information, Care, and Service and Facilities features. The analysis of the safety items isolated two factors with element saturations above 0.58: Information Gaps and Safety Incidents. The CSSQP is a new valid and reliable tool for measuring patient' experiences, including satisfaction and safety perception, after a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy.

Avoiding fears and promoting shared decision-making: How should physicians inform patients about radiation exposure from imaging tests?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the population's awareness about the radiation exposure associated with five specific imaging tests, and their preference regarding three different formats for receiving the information before undergoing an imaging test. METHODS: A quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a survey and focal groups including general population from two health departments in Spain. The sampling was carried out in stages (according to health department size) and stratified by age and sex, to get a representative sample. We randomly selected the participants from these stages to be contacted by telephone by a trained nurse. Oral informed consent was obtained. RESULTS: Of 602 participants in the quantitative survey, 418 (70.3%) stated that they were aware of the risk associated with radiation. While the majority of these 418 participants knew that x-rays involve radiation (85.4%), fewer were aware that CT (42%) and mammography (38%) also involve radiation, and a substantial proportion believed, incorrectly, that MRI (38%) and ultrasound (18.4%) expose patients to radiation. The population preference was to receive the information using both oral and written formats, accompanied by a table showing the equivalence of the radiation associated with the imaging test to either a number of chest X-rays and exposure number of days of background radiation. DISCUSSION: The general population does not receive enough information regarding radiation exposure and the associated risks related to imaging tests. Initiatives should be designed to reinforce the patient's awareness when ordering a diagnostic imaging test.

The Second Victim Phenomenon After a Clinical Error: The Design and Evaluation of a Website to Reduce Caregivers' Emotional Responses After a Clinical Error.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (incidents that harm a patient) can also produce emotional hardship for the professionals involved (second victims). Although a few international pioneering programs exist that aim to facilitate the recovery of the second victim, there are no known initiatives that aim to raise awareness in the professional community about this issue and prevent the situation from worsening. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to design and evaluate an online program directed at frontline hospital and primary care health professionals that raises awareness and provides information about the second victim phenomenon. METHODS: The design of the Mitigating Impact in Second Victims (MISE) online program was based on a literature review, and its contents were selected by a group of 15 experts on patient safety with experience in both clinical and academic settings. The website hosting MISE was subjected to an accreditation process by an external quality agency that specializes in evaluating health websites. The MISE structure and content were evaluated by 26 patient safety managers at hospitals and within primary care in addition to 266 frontline health care professionals who followed the program, taking into account its comprehension, usefulness of the information, and general adequacy. Finally, the amount of knowledge gained from the program was assessed with three objective measures (pre- and posttest design). RESULTS: The website earned Advanced Accreditation for health websites after fulfilling required standards. The comprehension and practical value of the MISE content were positively assessed by 88% (23/26) and 92% (24/26) of patient safety managers, respectively. MISE was positively evaluated by health care professionals, who awarded it 8.8 points out of a maximum 10. Users who finished MISE improved their knowledge on patient safety terminology, prevalence and impact of adverse events and clinical errors, second victim support models, and recommended actions following a severe adverse event (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MISE program differs from existing intervention initiatives by its preventive nature in relation to the second victim phenomenon. Its online nature makes it an easily accessible tool for the professional community. This program has shown to increase user's knowledge on this issue and it helps them correct their approach. Furthermore, it is one of the first initiatives to attempt to bring the second victim phenomenon closer to primary care.

A Spanish-language patient safety questionnaire to measure medical and nursing students' attitudes and knowledge / Un cuestionario en espanol sobre seguridad del paciente para medir las actitudes y los conocimientos de los estudiantes de medicina y enfermería

OBJECTIVE: To design and validate a questionnaire for assessing attitudes and knowledge about patient safety using a sample of medical and nursing students undergoing clinical training in Spain and four countries in Latin America. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a literature review was carried out and total of 786 medical and nursing students were surveyed at eight universities from five countries (Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Spain) to develop and refine a Spanish-language questionnaire on knowledge and attitudes about patient safety. The scope of the questionnaire was based on five dimensions (factors) presented in studies related to patient safety culture found in PubMed and Scopus. Based on the five factors, 25 reactive items were developed. Composite reliability indexes and Cronbach's alpha statistics were estimatedfor each factor, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess validity. After a pilot test, the questionnaire was refined using confirmatory models, maximum-likelihood estimation, and the variance-covariance matrix (as input). Multiple linear regression models were used to confirm external validity, considering variables related to patient safety culture as dependent variables and the five factors as independent variables. RESULTS: The final instrument was a structured five-point Likert self-administered survey (the "Latino Student Patient Safety Questionnaire") consisting of 21 items grouped into five factors. Compound reliability indexes (Cronbach's alpha statistic) calculated for the five factors were about 0.7 or higher. The results of the multiple linear regression analyses indicated good model fit (goodness-of-fit index: 0.9). Item-total correlations were higher than 0.3 in all cases. The convergent-discriminant validity was adequate. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire designed and validated in this study assesses nursing and medical students' attitudes and knowledge about patient safety. This instrument could be used to indirectly evaluate whether or not students in health disciplines are acquiring and thus likely to put into practice the professional skills currently considered most appropriate for patient safety.

OBJETIVO: Diseñar y validar un cuestionario de evaluación de las actitudes y los conocimientos en materia de seguridad del paciente con una muestra de estudiantes de medicina y enfermería que reciben formación médica en Espana y en cuatro países de América Latina. MÉTODOS: En este estudio transversal se llevó a cabo una revisión bibliográfica y se encuestó a un total de 786 estudiantes de medicina y enfermería de ocho universidades de cinco países (Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Espana y Guatemala) con objeto de elaborar y corregir un cuestionario en espanol sobre conocimientos y actitudes en materia de seguridad del paciente. El ámbito del cuestionario se basó en cinco dimensiones (factores) presentadas en estudios relacionados con la cultura de la seguridad del paciente encontrados en PubMed y Scopus. Con base en los cinco factores, se elaboraron 25 ítems reactivos. Se calcularon los índices de fiabilidad compuesta y alfa de Cronbach para cada factor, y se realizó un análisis factorial confirmatorio para evaluar la validez. Tras una prueba piloto se corrigió el cuestionario mediante modelos confirmatorios, el cálculo de la máxima probabilidad y la matriz de variancia-covariancia (como insumo). Se utilizaron modelos de regresión lineal múltiple para confirmar la validez externa, considerando las variables relacionadas con la cultura de seguridad del paciente como variables dependientes y los cinco factores como variables independientes. RESULTADOS: El instrumento final fue una encuesta autoadministrada mediante escala de Likert estructurada en cinco puntos ("Cuestionario de Seguridad del Paciente para Estudiantes Latinos"), que consta de 21 ítems agrupados en cinco factores. Los índices de fiabilidad compuesta (prueba estadística de alfa de Cronbach) calculados para los cinco factores fueron aproximadamente de 0,7 o superiores. Los resultados de los análisis de regresión lineal múltiple indicaron un buen ajuste del modelo (índice de bondad de ajuste: 0,9). Las correlaciones ítem-total fueron superiores a 0,3 en todos los casos. La validez convergente y discriminatoria fue adecuada. CONCLUSIONES: El cuestionario disenado y validado en este estudio evalúa las actitudes y los conocimientos de los estudiantes de enfermería y medicina en materia de seguridad del paciente. Este instrumento podría utilizarse para evaluar indirectamente si los estudiantes de disciplinas de la salud están adquiriendo, y por lo tanto, es probable que pongan en práctica, las habilidades profesionales consideradas actualmente como más apropiadas para la seguridad del paciente.

Frecuencia de errores de los pacientes con su medicación / Frequency of medication errors by patients

OBJETIVO: Analizar la frecuencia de errores de medicación que son cometidos e informados por los pacientes. MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo basado en encuestas telefónicas a una muestra aleatoria de pacientes adultos del nivel primario de salud del sistema público español. Respondieron un total de 1 247 pacientes (tasa de respuesta, 75 por ciento). El 63 por ciento eran mujeres y 29 por ciento eran mayores de 70 años. RESULTADOS: Mientras 37 pacientes (3 por ciento, IC 95 por ciento: 2-4) sufrieron complicaciones asociadas a la medicación en el curso del tratamiento, 241 (19,4 por ciento, IC 95 por ciento: 17-21) informaron haber cometido algún error con la medicación. Un menor tiempo de consulta (P < 0,01) y una peor valoración de la información proporcionada por el médico (P < 0,01) se asociaron al hecho de que en la dispensación en la farmacia le indicaran al paciente que el tratamiento prescrito no era apropiado. CONCLUSIONES: A los riesgos conocidos de sufrir un evento adverso, fruto de la intervención sanitaria por error del sistema o del profesional, hay que sumar los asociados a los errores de los pacientes en la autoadministración de la medicación. Los pacientes insatisfechos con la información proporcionada por el médico informaron un mayor número de errores.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the frequency of medication errors committed and reported by patients. METHODS: Descriptive study based on a telephone survey of a random sample of adult patients from the primary care level of the Spanish public health care system. A total of 1 247 patients responded (75 percent response rate); 63 percent were women and 29 percent were older than 70 years. RESULTS: While 37 patients (3 percent, 95 percent CI: 2-4) experienced complications associated with medication in the course of treatment, 241 (19.4 percent, 95 percent CI: 17-21) reported having made some mistake with their medication. A shorter consultation time (P < 0.01) and a worse assessment of the information provided by the physician (P < 0.01) were associated with the fact that during pharmacy dispensing the patient was told that the prescribed treatment was not appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the known risks of an adverse event due to a health intervention resulting from a system or practitioner error, there are risks associated with patient errors in the self-administration of medication. Patients who were unsatisfied with the information provided by the physician reported a greater number of errors.

[News items about clinical errors and safety perceptions in hospital patients]. / Noticias de prensa sobre errores clínicos y sensación de seguridad al acudir al hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze how news items about clinical errors are treated by the press in Spain and their influence on patients. METHODS: We performed a quantitative and qualitative study. Firstly, news items published between April and November 2007 in six newspapers were analyzed. Secondly, 829 patients from five hospitals in four autonomous regions were surveyed. RESULTS: We analyzed 90 cases generating 128 news items, representing a mean of 16 items per month. In 91 news items (71.1%) the source was checked. In 78 items (60.9%) the author could be identified. The impact of these news items was -4.86 points (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: -4.15-5.57). In 59 cases (57%) the error was attributed to the system, in 27 (21.3%) to health professionals, and in 41 (32.3%) to both. Neither the number of columns (p=0.702), nor the inclusion of a sub-header (p=0.195), nor a complementary image (p=0.9) were found to be related to the effect of the error on safety perceptions. Of the 829 patients, 515 (62.1%; 95%CI: 58.8-65.4%) claimed to have recently seen or heard news about clinical errors in the press, on the radio or on television. The perception of safety decreased when the same person was worried about being the victim of a clinical error and had seen a recent news item about such adverse events (chi(2)=15.17; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Every week news items about clinical errors are published or broadcast. The way in which newspapers report legal claims over alleged medical errors is similar to the way they report judicial sentences for negligence causing irreparable damage or harm. News about errors generates insecurity in patients. It is advisable to create interfaces between journalists and health professionals.