Beyond the medical record: other modes of error acknowledgment.

BACKGROUND: Studies before and since the 1999 Institute of Medicine report have noted the limitations of using medical record reporting for reliably quantifying and understanding medical error. Quantitative macro analyses of large datasets should be supplemented by small-scale qualitative studies to provide insight into micro-level daily events in clinical and hospital practice that contribute to errors and adverse events and how they are reported. DESIGN: The study design involved semistructured face-to-face interviews with residents about the medical errors in which they recently had been involved and included questions regarding how those errors were acknowledged. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports the ways in which medical error is or is not reported and residents' responses to a perceived medical error. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six residents were randomly sampled from a total population of 85 residents working in a 600-bed teaching hospital. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures were based on analysis of cases residents described. Using Ethnograph and traditional methods of content analysis, cases were categorized as Documented, Discussed, and Uncertain. RESULTS: Of 73 cases, 30 (41.1%) were formally acknowledged and Documented in the medical record; 24 (32.9%) were addressed through Discussions but not documented; 19 cases (26%) cases were classified as Uncertain. Twelve cases involved medication errors, which were acknowledged in different categories. CONCLUSIONS: The supervisory discussion, the informal discussion, and near-miss contain important information for improving clinical care. Our study also shows the need to improve residents' education to prepare them to recognize and address medical errors.

Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps.

PURPOSE: To describe how communication failures contribute to many medical mishaps. METHOD: In late 1999, a sample of 26 residents stratified by medical specialty, year of residency, and gender was randomly selected from a population of 85 residents at a 600-bed U.S. teaching hospital. The study design involved semistructured face-to-face interviews with the residents about their routine work environments and activities, the medical mishaps in which they recently had been involved, and a description of both the individual and organizational contributory factors. The themes reported here emerged from inductive analyses of the data. RESULTS: Residents reported a total of 70 mishap incidents. Aspects of "communication" and "patient management" were the two most commonly cited contributing factors. Residents described themselves as embedded in a complex network of relationships, playing a pivotal role in patient management vis-à-vis other medical staff and health care providers from within the hospital and from the community. Recurring patterns of communication difficulties occur within these relationships and appear to be associated with the occurrence of medical mishaps. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of everyday medical mishaps in this study is associated with faulty communication; but, poor communication is not simply the result of poor transmission or exchange of information. Communication failures are far more complex and relate to hierarchical differences, concerns with upward influence, conflicting roles and role ambiguity, and interpersonal power and conflict. A clearer understanding of these dynamics highlights possibilities for appropriate interventions in medical education and in health care organizations aimed at improving patient safety.

Mental health services for residents: more important than ever.

The mental health of physicians in training is a topic of considerable concern. Recent attention to the issue of patient safety has led to examination of the relationship between residents' stress and compromised clinical performance. Few mental health programs dedicated to residents and formally structured to meet their specific needs are reported in the literature. The authors raise the question of why there are so few programs and why more residents don't take advantage of services that do exist. They then describe the development and utilization of the University of Michigan Health System's House Officer Mental Health Program. The program was structured to overcome barriers to utilization such as lack of funding, concerns about confidentiality, ease of access and residents' financial constraints and to provide comprehensive services for a wide range of diagnoses. Data are presented on the first four years of operation from 1997-01 that show increasing utilization and high levels of satisfaction over this time period by house officers at all levels of training and in all departments of the Health System. As increasing attention is paid to how to deal with medical errors, the establishment of such programs should be considered, not only as a means to address the general mental health of residents but also as an appropriate venue to deal with the stress that can contribute to and be induced by medical mishaps.

Resident perceptions of medical errors in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate resident experience and perceptions of medical error associated with emergency department (ED) care. METHODS: Using a semistructured interview protocol, three researchers interviewed 26 randomly selected medical, surgical, and obstetrics residents regarding medical error. The authors chose a 16-case subset of incidents involving ED care for initial review. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively to draw out recurrent categories and themes. Two investigators separately analyzed all cases to ensure common understanding and agreement. RESULTS: Most cases involved misdiagnosis, misread radiographs, or inappropriate disposition. Two thirds of the case patients died or experienced delays in care. Residents felt that the complexity of the patients, as well as the complexity of their own jobs, contributed to error. Attending supervision, nurse evaluation, and additional physician involvement all were noted to be important checks within the hospital system. Residents most often held the ED responsible for error. In addition, they deemed themselves, their teams, and their lack of training responsible. Though residents often discussed events with their admitting teams, follow-up with the ED or other associated individuals was uncommon. The findings revealed seven common themes that include factors contributing to errors, checks and adaptations, and follow-up of the event. CONCLUSIONS: Residents are aware of medical error and able to recall events in detail. Whereas events are discussed among inpatient teams, little information finds its way back to the ED, potentially resulting in misunderstandings between departments and hindering learning from events. In-depth interviewing allows a nuanced and detailed approach to error analysis.