The Association of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations With Healthcare Utilization in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis.

Background: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) conducted during hospitalization can lead to meaningful patient participation in the decision-making process affecting medical management. The aim of this study is to determine if standardized documentation of a SIC within an institutionally approved EHR module during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, hospice enrollment prior to discharge, and 90-day readmissions. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of hospital encounters of general medicine patients at a community teaching hospital affiliated with an academic medical center from October 2018 to August 2019. Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC were identified and matched by propensity score to control encounters without a SIC in a ratio of 1:3. We used multivariable, paired logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards modeling to assess key outcomes. Results: Of 6853 encounters (5143 patients), 59 (.86%) encounters (59 patients) had standardized documentation of a SIC, and 58 (.85%) were matched to 167 control encounters (167 patients). Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC had greater odds of palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR] 60.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.45-290.08, P < .01), a documented code status change (OR 8.04, 95% CI 1.54-42.05, P = .01), and discharge with hospice services (OR 35.07, 95% CI 5.80-212.08, P < .01) compared to matched controls. There was no significant association with 90-day readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] .88, standard error [SE] .37, P = .73). Conclusions: Standardized documentation of a SIC during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, and hospice enrollment.

Comparison of a Voluntary Safety Reporting System to a Global Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in an Oncology Population.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial. METHODS: Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared. RESULTS: The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.

Acute Care Patient Portal Intervention: Portal Use and Patient Activation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-facing health information technology (HIT) tools, such as patient portals, are recognized as a potential mechanism to facilitate patient engagement and patient-centered care, yet the use of these tools remains limited in the hospital setting. Although research in this area is growing, it is unclear how the use of acute care patient portals might affect outcomes, such as patient activation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of an acute care patient portal and investigate its association with patient and care partner activation in the hospital setting. METHODS: We implemented an acute care patient portal on 6 acute care units over an 18-month period. We investigated the characteristics of the users (patients and their care partners) of the patient portal, as well as their use of the portal. This included the number of visits to each page, the number of days used, the length of the user's access period, and the average percent of days used during the access period. Patient and care partner activation was assessed using the short form of the patient activation measure (PAM-13) and the caregiver patient activation measure (CG-PAM). Comparisons of the activation scores were performed using propensity weighting and robust weighted linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 2974 randomly sampled patients, 59.01% (1755/2974) agreed to use the acute care patient portal. Acute care patient portal enrollees were younger, less sick, less likely to have Medicare as their insurer, and more likely to use the Partners Healthcare enterprise ambulatory patient portal (Patient Gateway). The most used features of the acute care patient portal were the laboratory test results, care team information, and medication list. Most users accessed the portal between 1 to 4 days during their hospitalization, and the average number of days used (logged in at least once per day) was 1.8 days. On average, users accessed the portal 42.69% of the hospital days during which it was available. There was significant association with patient activation on the neurology service (P<.001) and medicine service (P=.01), after the introduction of HIT tools and the acute care patient portal, but not on the oncology service. CONCLUSIONS: Portal users most often accessed the portal to view their clinical information, though portal usage was limited to only the first few days of enrollment. We found an association between the use of the portal and HIT tools with improved levels of patient activation. These tools may help facilitate patient engagement and improve outcomes when fully utilized by patients and care partners. Future study should leverage usage metrics to describe portal use and assess the impact of HIT tools on specific outcome measures in the hospital setting.

Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical errors, family experience, and communication processes improved after implementation of an intervention to standardize the structure of healthcare provider-family communication on family centered rounds. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter before and after intervention study. SETTING: Pediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents. INTERVENTION: Families, nurses, and physicians coproduced an intervention to standardize healthcare provider-family communication on ward rounds ("family centered rounds"), which included structured, high reliability communication on bedside rounds emphasizing health literacy, family engagement, and bidirectional communication; structured, written real-time summaries of rounds; a formal training programme for healthcare providers; and strategies to support teamwork, implementation, and process improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical errors (primary outcome), including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors, modeled using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site; family experience; and communication processes (eg, family engagement on rounds). Errors were measured via an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting. RESULTS: The overall rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient days) was unchanged (41.2 (95% confidence interval 31.2 to 54.5) pre-intervention v 35.8 (26.9 to 47.7) post-intervention, P=0.21), but harmful errors (preventable adverse events) decreased by 37.9% (20.7 (15.3 to 28.1) v 12.9 (8.9 to 18.6), P=0.01) post-intervention. Non-preventable adverse events also decreased (12.6 (8.9 to 17.9) v 5.2 (3.1 to 8.8), P=0.003). Top box (eg, "excellent") ratings for six of 25 components of family reported experience improved; none worsened. Family centered rounds occurred more frequently (72.2% (53.5% to 85.4%) v 82.8% (64.9% to 92.6%), P=0.02). Family engagement 55.6% (32.9% to 76.2%) v 66.7% (43.0% to 84.1%), P=0.04) and nurse engagement (20.4% (7.0% to 46.6%) v 35.5% (17.0% to 59.6%), P=0.03) on rounds improved. Families expressing concerns at the start of rounds (18.2% (5.6% to 45.3%) v 37.7% (17.6% to 63.3%), P=0.03) and reading back plans (4.7% (0.7% to 25.2%) v 26.5% (12.7% to 7.3%), P=0.02) increased. Trainee teaching and the duration of rounds did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall errors were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and family experience and communication processes improved after implementation of a structured communication intervention for family centered rounds coproduced by families, nurses, and physicians. Family centered care processes may improve safety and quality of care without negatively impacting teaching or duration of rounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance.

Importance: Medical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection. Objective: To compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Error and AE rates. Results: Overall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Families provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

Characterization of Epithelial Progenitors in Normal Human Palatine Tonsils and Their HPV16 E6/E7-Induced Perturbation.

Human palatine tonsils are oropharyngeal lymphoid tissues containing multiple invaginations (crypts) in which the continuity of the outer surface epithelium is disrupted and the isolated epithelial cells intermingle with other cell types. We now show that primitive epithelial cells detectable in vitro in 2D colony assays and in a 3D culture system are CD44(+)NGFR(+) and present in both surface and crypt regions. Transcriptome analysis indicated a high similarity between CD44(+)NGFR(+) cells in both regions, although those isolated from the crypt contained a higher proportion of the most primitive (holo)clonogenic cells. Lentiviral transduction of CD44(+)NGFR(+) cells from both regions with human papillomavirus 16-encoded E6/E7 prolonged their growth in 2D cultures and caused aberrant differentiation in 3D cultures. Our findings therefore reveal a shared, site-independent, hierarchical organization, differentiation potential, and transcriptional profile of normal human tonsillar epithelial progenitor cells. They also introduce a new model for investigating the mechanisms of their transformation.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS: In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).

Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle.

IMPORTANCE: Handoff miscommunications are a leading cause of medical errors. Studies comprehensively assessing handoff improvement programs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether introduction of a multifaceted handoff program was associated with reduced rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events, fewer omissions of key data in written handoffs, improved verbal handoffs, and changes in resident-physician workflow. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective intervention study of 1255 patient admissions (642 before and 613 after the intervention) involving 84 resident physicians (42 before and 42 after the intervention) from July-September 2009 and November 2009-January 2010 on 2 inpatient units at Boston Children's Hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Resident handoff bundle, consisting of standardized communication and handoff training, a verbal mnemonic, and a new team handoff structure. On one unit, a computerized handoff tool linked to the electronic medical record was introduced. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events measured by daily systematic surveillance. The secondary outcomes were omissions in the printed handoff document and resident time-motion activity. RESULTS: Medical errors decreased from 33.8 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 27.3-40.3) to 18.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 14.7-21.9; P < .001), and preventable adverse events decreased from 3.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 1.7-4.8) to 1.5 (95% CI, 0.51-2.4) per 100 admissions (P = .04) following the intervention. There were fewer omissions of key handoff elements on printed handoff documents, especially on the unit that received the computerized handoff tool (significant reductions of omissions in 11 of 14 categories with computerized tool; significant reductions in 2 of 14 categories without computerized tool). Physicians spent a greater percentage of time in a 24-hour period at the patient bedside after the intervention (8.3%; 95% CI 7.1%-9.8%) vs 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-12.2%; P = .03). The average duration of verbal handoffs per patient did not change. Verbal handoffs were more likely to occur in a quiet location (33.3%; 95% CI, 14.5%-52.2% vs 67.9%; 95% CI, 50.6%-85.2%; P = .03) and private location (50.0%; 95% CI, 30%-70% vs 85.7%; 95% CI, 72.8%-98.7%; P = .007) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a handoff bundle was associated with a significant reduction in medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children. Improvements in verbal and written handoff processes occurred, and resident workflow did not change adversely.

Return on investment for vendor computerized physician order entry in four community hospitals: the importance of decision support.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital adverse events are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and represent a major cost burden to health care systems. A study was conducted to evaluate the return on investment (ROI) for the adoption of vendor-developed computerized physician oder entry (CPOE) systems in four community hospitals in Massachusetts. METHODS: Of the four hospitals, two were under one management structure and implemented the same vendor-developed CPOE system (Hospital Group A), while the other two were under a second management structure and implemented another vendor-developed CPOE system (Hospital Group B). Cost savings were calculated on the basis of reduction in preventable adverse drug event (ADE) rates as measured previously. ROI, net cash flow, and the breakeven point during a 10-year cost-and-benefit model were calculated. At the time of the study, none of the participating hospitals had implemented more than a rudimentary decision support system together with CPOE. RESULTS: Implementation costs were lower for Hospital Group A than B ($7,130,894 total or $83/admission versus $19,293,379 total or $113/admission, respectively), as were preventable ADE-related avoided costs ($7,937,651 and $16,557,056, respectively). A cost-benefit analysis demonstrated that Hospital Group A had an ROI of 11.3%, breaking even on the investment eight years following implementation. Hospital Group B showed a negative return, with an ROI of -3.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of vendor CPOE systems in community hospitals was associated with a modest ROI at best when applying cost savings attributable to prevention of ADEs only. The modest financial returns can beattributed to the lack of clinical decision support tools.

Risks of complications by attending physicians after performing nighttime procedures.

CONTEXT: Few data exist on the relationships between experienced physicians' work hours and sleep, and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine if sleep opportunities for attending surgeons and obstetricians/gynecologists are associated with the risk of complications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Matched retrospective cohort study of procedures performed from January 1999 through June 2008 by attending physicians (86 surgeons and 134 obstetricians/gynecologists) who had been in the hospital performing another procedure involving adult patients for at least part of the preceding night (12 am-6 am, postnighttime procedures). Sleep opportunity was calculated as the time between end of the overnight procedure and start of the first procedure the following day. Matched control procedures included as many as 5 procedures of the same type performed by the same physician on days without preceding overnight procedures. Complications were identified and classified by a blinded 3-step process that included administrative screening, medical record reviews, and clinician ratings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of complications in postnighttime procedures as compared with controls; rates of complications in postnighttime procedures among physicians with more than 6-hour sleep opportunities vs those with sleep opportunities of 6 hours or less. RESULTS: A total of 919 surgical and 957 obstetrical postnighttime procedures were matched with 3552 and 3945 control procedures, respectively. Complications occurred in 101 postnighttime procedures (5.4%) and 365 control procedures (4.9%) (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.41). Complications occurred in 82 of 1317 postnighttime procedures with sleep opportunities of 6 hours or less (6.2%) vs 19 of 559 postnighttime procedures with sleep opportunities of more than 6 hours (3.4%) (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.02-2.89). Postnighttime procedures completed after working more than 12 hours (n = 958) compared with 12 hours or less (n = 918) had nonsignificantly higher complication rates (6.5% vs 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.96-2.27). CONCLUSION: Overall, procedures performed the day after attending physicians worked overnight were not associated with significantly increased complication rates, although there was an increased rate of complications among postnighttime surgical procedures performed by physicians with sleep opportunities of less than 6 hours.

Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.

BACKGROUND: Although missed and delayed diagnoses have become an important patient safety concern, they remain largely unstudied, especially in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for investigating missed and delayed diagnoses, advance understanding of their causes, and identify opportunities for prevention. DESIGN: Retrospective review of 307 closed malpractice claims in which patients alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ambulatory setting. SETTING: 4 malpractice insurance companies. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for patients, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. RESULTS: A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients. Fifty-nine percent (106 of 181) of these errors were associated with serious harm, and 30% (55 of 181) resulted in death. For 59% (106 of 181) of the errors, cancer was the diagnosis involved, chiefly breast (44 claims [24%]) and colorectal (13 claims [7%]) cancer. The most common breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (100 of 181 [55%]), failure to create a proper follow-up plan (81 of 181 [45%]), failure to obtain an adequate history or perform an adequate physical examination (76 of 181 [42%]), and incorrect interpretation of diagnostic tests (67 of 181 [37%]). The leading factors that contributed to the errors were failures in judgment (143 of 181 [79%]), vigilance or memory (106 of 181 [59%]), knowledge (86 of 181 [48%]), patient-related factors (84 of 181 [46%]), and handoffs (36 of 181 [20%]). The median number of process breakdowns and contributing factors per error was 3 for both (interquartile range, 2 to 4). LIMITATIONS: Reviewers were not blinded to the litigation outcomes, and the reliability of the error determination was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the result of multiple breakdowns and individual and system factors. Awareness of the most common types of breakdowns and factors could help efforts to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.

Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers.

BACKGROUND: The relative importance of the different factors that cause surgical error is unknown. Malpractice claim file analysis may help to identify leading causes of surgical error and identify opportunities for prevention. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 444 closed malpractice claims, from 4 malpractice liability insurers, in which patients alleged a surgical error. Surgeon-reviewers examined the litigation file and medical record to determine whether an injury attributable to surgical error had occurred and, if so, what factors contributed. Detailed descriptive information concerning etiology and outcome was recorded. RESULTS: Reviewers identified surgical errors that resulted in patient injury in 258 of the 444 (58%) claims. Sixty-five percent of these cases involved significant or major injury; 23% involved death. In most cases (75%), errors occurred in intraoperative care; 25% in preoperative care; 35% in postoperative care. Thirty-one percent of the cases had errors occurring during multiple phases of care; in 62%, more than 1 clinician played a contributory role. Systems factors contributed to error in 82% of cases. The leading system factors were inexperience/lack of technical competence (41%) and communication breakdown (24%). Cases with technical errors (54%) were more likely than those without technical errors to involve errors in multiple phases of care (36% vs 24%, P = .03), multiple personnel (83% vs 63%, P < .001), lack of technical competence/knowledge (51% vs 29%, P < .001) and patient-related factors (54% vs 33%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Systems factors play a critical role in most surgical errors, including technical errors. Closed claims analysis can help to identify priority areas for intervening to reduce errors.

Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation.

BACKGROUND: In the current debate over tort reform, critics of the medical malpractice system charge that frivolous litigation--claims that lack evidence of injury, substandard care, or both--is common and costly. METHODS: Trained physicians reviewed a random sample of 1452 closed malpractice claims from five liability insurers to determine whether a medical injury had occurred and, if so, whether it was due to medical error. We analyzed the prevalence, characteristics, litigation outcomes, and costs of claims that lacked evidence of error. RESULTS: For 3 percent of the claims, there were no verifiable medical injuries, and 37 percent did not involve errors. Most of the claims that were not associated with errors (370 of 515 [72 percent]) or injuries (31 of 37 [84 percent]) did not result in compensation; most that involved injuries due to error did (653 of 889 [73 percent]). Payment of claims not involving errors occurred less frequently than did the converse form of inaccuracy--nonpayment of claims associated with errors. When claims not involving errors were compensated, payments were significantly lower on average than were payments for claims involving errors (313,205 dollars vs. 521,560 dollars, P=0.004). Overall, claims not involving errors accounted for 13 to 16 percent of the system's total monetary costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including those involving lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of total administrative costs. CONCLUSIONS: Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.