Do you mind if I record?: Perceptions and practice regarding patient requests to record clinic visits in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Audio recordings of oncology clinic discussions can help patients retain and understand information about their disease and treatment decisions. Access to this tool relies on acceptance of recordings by oncologists. This is the first study to evaluate experience and attitudes of oncologists toward patients recording clinic visits. METHODS: Medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists from 5 US cancer centers and community affiliates were surveyed to evaluate clinicians' experience, beliefs, and practices regarding patient-initiated recordings. RESULTS: Among 360 oncologists (69% response rate), virtually all (93%) have experienced patients seeking to record visits. Although 75% are comfortable with recording, 25% are uncomfortable and 56% report concerns ranging from less thorough discussions to legal liability. Most (85%) always agree when patients ask to record, but 15% never or selectively allow recording. Although 51% believe recording is positive for the patient-physician relationship, a sizable minority report that it can lead to less detailed conversations (28%) or avoidance of difficult topics, including prognosis (33%). Views did not vary based on subspecialty, practice setting, or geographic region, but older age and years in practice were associated with more positive views of recording. The majority of clinicians (72%) desire institutional policies to govern guidelines about recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists are comfortable with patient requests to record visits, but a sizable minority remain uncomfortable, and access to recording varies solely on physician preference. This difference in care delivery may benefit from institutional policies that promote access while addressing legitimate physician concerns over privacy and appropriate use of recordings.

Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The tort liability system is intended to serve 3 functions: compensate patients who sustain injury from negligence, provide corrective justice, and deter negligence. Deterrence, in theory, occurs because clinicians know that they may experience adverse consequences if they negligently injure patients. OBJECTIVE: To review empirical findings regarding the association between malpractice liability risk (ie, the extent to which clinicians face the threat of being sued and having to pay damages) and health care quality and safety. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search of multiple databases for studies published between January 1, 1990, and November 25, 2019, examining the relationship between malpractice liability risk measures and health outcomes or structural and process indicators of health care quality. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Information on the exposure and outcome measures, results, and acknowledged limitations was extracted by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling was not possible due to variations in study designs; therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Associations between malpractice risk measures and health care quality and safety outcomes. Exposure measures included physicians' malpractice insurance premiums, state tort reforms, frequency of paid claims, average claim payment, physicians' claims history, total malpractice payments, jury awards, the presence of an immunity from malpractice liability, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Medicare malpractice geographic practice cost index, and composite measures combining these measures. Outcome measures included patient mortality; hospital readmissions, avoidable admissions, and prolonged length of stay; receipt of cancer screening; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators and other measures of adverse events; measures of hospital and nursing home quality; and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included; 28 examined hospital care only and 16 focused on obstetrical care. Among obstetrical care studies, 9 found no significant association between liability risk and outcomes (such as Apgar score and birth injuries) and 7 found limited evidence for an association. Among 20 studies of patient mortality in nonobstetrical care settings, 15 found no evidence of an association with liability risk and 5 found limited evidence. Among 7 studies that examined hospital readmissions and avoidable initial hospitalizations, none found evidence of an association between liability risk and outcomes. Among 12 studies of other measures (eg, patient safety indicators, process-of-care quality measures, patient satisfaction), 7 found no association between liability risk and these outcomes and 5 identified significant associations in some analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review, most studies found no association between measures of malpractice liability risk and health care quality and outcomes. Although gaps in the evidence remain, the available findings suggested that greater tort liability, at least in its current form, was not associated with improved quality of care.

'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.

Association of Overlapping Surgery With Perioperative Outcomes.

Importance: Overlapping surgery, in which more than 1 procedure performed by the same primary surgeon is scheduled so the start time of one procedure overlaps with the end time of another, is of concern because of potential adverse outcomes. Objective: To determine the association between overlapping surgery and mortality, complications, and length of surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 66 430 operations in patients aged 18 to 90 years undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty; spine surgery; coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery; and craniotomy at 8 centers between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2018. Patients were followed up until discharge. Exposures: Overlapping surgery (≥2 operations performed by the same surgeon in which ≥1 hour of 1 case, or the entire case for those <1 hour, occurs when another procedure is being performed). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality or complications (major: thromboembolic event, pneumonia, sepsis, stroke, or myocardial infarction; minor: urinary tract or surgical site infection) and surgery duration. Results: The final sample consisted of 66 430 operations (mean patient age, 59 [SD, 15] years; 31 915 women [48%]), of which 8224 (12%) were overlapping. After adjusting for confounders, overlapping surgery was not associated with a significant difference in in-hospital mortality (1.9% overlapping vs 1.6% nonoverlapping; difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.2% to 0.7%]; P = .21) or risk of complications (12.8% overlapping vs 11.8% nonoverlapping; difference, 0.9% [95% CI, -0.1% to 1.9%]; P = .08). Overlapping surgery was associated with increased surgery length (204 vs 173 minutes; difference, 30 minutes [95% CI, 24 to 37 minutes]; P < .001). Overlapping surgery was significantly associated with increased mortality and increased complications among patients having a high preoperative predicted risk for mortality and complications, compared with low-risk patients (mortality: 5.8% vs 4.7%; difference, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.1% to 2.2%]; P = .03; complications: 29.2% vs 27.0%; difference, 2.3% [95% CI, 0.3% to 4.3%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing common operations, overlapping surgery was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality or postoperative complication rates but was significantly associated with increased surgery length. Further research is needed to understand the association of overlapping surgery with these outcomes among specific patient subgroups.

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.

Effects Of A Communication-And-Resolution Program On Hospitals' Malpractice Claims And Costs.

To promote communication with patients after medical injuries and improve patient safety, numerous hospitals have implemented communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs). Through these programs, hospitals communicate transparently with patients after adverse events; investigate what happened and offer an explanation; and, when warranted, apologize, take responsibility, and proactively offer compensation. Despite growing consensus that CRPs are the right thing to do, concerns over liability risks remain. We evaluated the liability effects of CRP implementation at four Massachusetts hospitals by examining before-and-after trends in claims volume, cost, and time to resolution and comparing them to trends among nonimplementing peer institutions. CRP implementation was associated with improved trends in the rate of new claims and legal defense costs at some hospitals, but it did not significantly alter trends in other outcomes. None of the hospitals experienced worsening liability trends after CRP implementation, which suggests that transparency, apology, and proactive compensation can be pursued without adverse financial consequences.

Outcomes In Two Massachusetts Hospital Systems Give Reason For Optimism About Communication-And-Resolution Programs.

Through communication-and-resolution programs, hospitals and liability insurers communicate with patients when adverse events occur; investigate and explain what happened; and, where appropriate, apologize and proactively offer compensation. Using data recorded by program staff members and from surveys of involved clinicians, we examined case outcomes of a program used by two academic medical centers and two of their community hospitals in Massachusetts in the period 2013-15. The hospitals demonstrated good adherence to the program protocol. Ninety-one percent of the program events did not meet compensation eligibility criteria, and those events that did were not costly to resolve (the median payment was $75,000). Only 5 percent of events led to malpractice claims or lawsuits. Clinicians were supportive of the program but desired better communication about it from staff members. Our findings suggest that communication-and-resolution programs will not lead to higher liability costs when hospitals adhere to their commitment to offer compensation proactively.

Challenges of Implementing a Communication-and-Resolution Program Where Multiple Organizations Must Cooperate.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a communication-and-resolution program (CRP) in a setting in which liability insurers and health care facilities must collaborate to resolve incidents involving a facility and separately insured clinicians. STUDY SETTING: Six hospitals and clinics and a liability insurer in Washington State. STUDY DESIGN: Sites designed and implemented CRPs and contributed information about cases and operational challenges over 20 months. Data were qualitatively analyzed. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Data from interviews with personnel responsible for CRP implementation were triangulated with data on program cases collected by sites and notes recorded during meetings with sites and among project team members. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sites experienced small victories in resolving particular cases and streamlining some working relationships, but they were unable to successfully implement a collaborative CRP. Barriers included the insurer's distance from the point of care, passive rather than active support from top leaders, coordinating across departments and organizations, workload, nonparticipation by some physicians, and overcoming distrust. CONCLUSIONS: Operating CRPs where multiple organizations must collaborate can be highly challenging. Success likely requires several preconditions, including preexisting trust among organizations, active leadership engagement, physicians' commitment to participate, mechanisms for quickly transmitting information to insurers, tolerance for missteps, and clear protocols for joint investigations and resolutions.

Case Outcomes in a Communication-and-Resolution Program in New York Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine case outcomes in a communication-and-resolution program (CRP) implemented to respond to adverse events in general surgery. STUDY SETTING: Five acute-care hospitals in New York City. STUDY DESIGN: Following CRP implementation, hospitals recorded information about each CRP event for 22 months. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Risk managers prospectively collected data in collaboration with representatives from the hospital's insurer. External researchers administered an online satisfaction survey to clinicians involved in CRP events. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among 125 CRP cases, disclosure conversations were carried out in 92 percent, explanations were conveyed in 88 percent, and apologies were offered in 72.8 percent. Three quarters of events did not involve substandard care. Compensation offers beyond bill waivers were deemed appropriate in 9 of 30 of cases in which substandard care caused harm and communicated in six such cases. In 44 percent of cases, hospitals identified steps that could be taken to improve safety. Clinicians had low awareness of the workings of the CRP, but high satisfaction with their experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The bulk of CRPs' work is in investigating and communicating about events not caused by substandard care. These CRPs were quite successful in handling such events, but less consistent in offering compensation in cases involving substandard care.

Collaboration with Regulators to Support Quality and Accountability Following Medical Errors: The Communication and Resolution Program Certification Pilot.

OBJECTIVE: Communication and resolution programs (CRPs) involve institutions responding to adverse events using transparency with patients, event analysis, recurrence prevention, and compensation. Collaboration with regulators around CRPs could enhance health care quality. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Health care institutions, liability insurers, and the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC, board of medicine) in Washington State. STUDY DESIGN: MQAC has collaborated with the Foundation for Health Care Quality (FHCQ) on the CRP Certification pilot. A panel of physicians, risk managers, and patient advocates at FHCQ will review cases for use of the CRP key elements. Cases meeting this standard will be "CRP Certified." If MQAC determines that the CRP enhanced patient safety comparable or better than board action, the Commission may close the case. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Developing this process identified the following issues: (1) protecting information submitted for CRP Certification; (2) determining what information the Commission needs to assess whether additional investigation is warranted; (3) preserving the Commission's responsibility to protect the public while working with health care organizations; and (4) addressing concerns that CRP Certification not shield incompetent providers. CONCLUSIONS: The CRP Certification program is a promising example of collaboration among institutions, insurers, and regulators to promote patient-centered accountability and learning following adverse events.

Association Between State Medical Malpractice Environment and Surgical Quality and Cost in the United States.

CONTEXT: The US medical malpractice system is designed to deter negligence and encourage quality of care through threat of liability. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether state-level malpractice environment is associated with outcomes and costs of colorectal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study of 116,977 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent colorectal surgery using administrative claims data. State-level malpractice risk was measured using mean general surgery malpractice insurance premiums; paid claims per surgeon; state tort reforms; and a composite measure. Associations between malpractice environment and postoperative outcomes and price-standardized Medicare payments were estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and generalized linear models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: thirty-day postoperative mortality; complications (pneumonia, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, acute renal failure, surgical site infection, postoperative sepsis, any complication); readmission; total price-standardized Medicare payments for index hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge episode-of-care. RESULTS: Few associations between measures of state malpractice risk environment and outcomes were identified. However, analyses using the composite measure showed that patients treated in states with greatest malpractice risk were more likely than those in lowest risk states to experience any complication (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.22-1.41), pneumonia (OR: 1.36; 95%: CI, 1.16-1.60), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.22-1.70), venous thromboembolism (OR:2.11; 95% CI: 1.70-2.61), acute renal failure (OR: 1.34; 95% CI; 1.22-1.47), and sepsis (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.24-1.53; all P < 0.001). There were no consistent associations between malpractice environment and Medicare payments. CONCLUSIONS: There were no consistent associations between state-level malpractice risk and higher quality of care or Medicare payments for colorectal surgery.