Frequency and Nature of Communication and Handoff Failures in Medical Malpractice Claims.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission has identified miscommunication as a leading cause of sentinel events, the most serious adverse events, but it is unclear what role miscommunications play in malpractice claims. We sought to determine the proportion of medical malpractice claims involving communication failure and describe their nature, including providers involved, locations, miscommunications types, costs, and the potential for handoff tools to avert risk and associated costs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a random sample of malpractice claims from 2001 to 2011, collected in CRICO Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System, a national claims database. Two researchers reviewed cases to determine if a claim involved communication failure, its type, and potential preventability using a communication tool. Interrater reliability was assessed by dual review of 50 cases (81% agreement, κ = 0.62 for evidence of miscommunication). Claimant demographics, case characteristics, and financial data were analyzed. RESULTS: Communication failures were identified in 49% of claims. Claims with communication failures were significantly less likely to be dropped, denied, or dismissed than claims without (54% versus 67%, P = 0.015). Fifty-three percent of claims with communication failures involved provider-patient miscommunication, and 47% involved provider-provider miscommunication. The information types most frequently miscommunicated were contingency plans, diagnosis, and illness severity. Forty percent of communication failures involved a failed handoff; the majority could potentially have been averted by using a handoff tool (77%). Mean total costs for cases involving communication failures were higher ($237,600 versus $154,100, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Communication failures are a significant contributing cause of malpractice claims and impose a substantial financial burden on the healthcare system. Interventions to improve transmission of critical patient information have the potential to substantially reduce malpractice expenditures.

Clinician Perceptions of Timing and Presentation of Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts.

OBJECTIVE: Alert presentation of clinical decision support recommendations is a common method for providing information; however, many alerts are overridden suggesting presentation design improvements can be made. This study attempts to assess pediatric prescriber information needs for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) alerts and to evaluate the optimal presentation timing and presentation in the medication ordering process. METHODS: Six case scenarios presented interactions between medications used in pediatric specialties of general medicine, infectious disease, cardiology, and neurology. Timing varied to include alert interruption at medication selection versus order submission; or was noninterruptive. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and independently analyzed to derive central themes. RESULTS: Fourteen trainee and attending clinicians trained in pediatrics, cardiology, and neurology participated. Coders derived 8 central themes from 929 quotes. Discordance exists between medication prescribing frequency and DDI knowledge; providers may commonly prescribe medications for which they do not recognize DDIs. Providers wanted alerts at medication selection rather than at order signature. Alert presentation themes included standardizing text, providing interaction-specific incidence/risk information, DDI rating scales, consolidating alerts, and providing alternative therapies. Providers want alerts to be actionable, for example, allowing medication discontinuation and color visual cues for essential information. Despite alert volume, participants did not "mind being reminded because there is always the chance that at that particular moment (they) do not remember it" and acknowledged the importance of alerts as "essential in terms of patient safety." CONCLUSION: Clinicians unanimously agreed on the importance of receiving DDI alerts to improve patient safety. The perceived alert value can be improved by incorporating clinician preferences for timing and presentation.