Qualitative Content Analysis of Coworkers' Safety Reports of Unprofessional Behavior by Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to develop a valid and reliable taxonomy of coworker reports of alleged unprofessional behavior by physicians and advanced practice professionals and determine the prevalence of reports describing particular types of unprofessional conduct. METHODS: We conducted qualitative content analysis of coworker reports of alleged unprofessional behavior by physicians and advanced practice professionals to create a standardized taxonomy. We conducted a focus group of experts in medical professionalism to assess the taxonomy's face validity. We randomly selected 120 reports (20%) of the 590 total reports submitted through the medical center's safety event reporting system between June 2015 and September 2016 to measure interrater reliability of taxonomy codes and estimate the prevalence of reports describing particular types of conduct. RESULTS: The initial taxonomy contained 22 codes organized into the following four domains: competent medical care, clear and respectful communication, integrity, and responsibility. All 10 experts agreed that the four domains reflected essential elements of medical professionalism. Interrater reliabilities for all codes and domains had a κ value greater than the 0.60 threshold for good reliability. Most reports (60%, 95% confidence interval = 51%-69%) described disrespectful or offensive communication. Nine codes had a prevalence of less than 1% and were folded into their respective domains resulting in a final taxonomy composed of 13 codes. CONCLUSIONS: The final taxonomy represents a useful tool with demonstrated validity and reliability, opening the door for reliable analysis and systems to promote accountability and behavior change. Given the safety implications of unprofessional behavior, understanding the typology of coworker observations of unprofessional behavior may inform organization strategies to address this threat to patient safety.

Association of Coworker Reports About Unprofessional Behavior by Surgeons With Surgical Complications in Their Patients.

Importance: For surgical teams, high reliability and optimal performance depend on effective communication, mutual respect, and continuous situational awareness. Surgeons who model unprofessional behaviors may undermine a culture of safety, threaten teamwork, and thereby increase the risk for medical errors and surgical complications. Objective: To test the hypothesis that patients of surgeons with higher numbers of reports from coworkers about unprofessional behaviors are at greater risk for postoperative complications than patients whose surgeons generate fewer coworker reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed data from 2 geographically diverse academic medical centers that participated in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and recorded and acted on electronic reports of safety events from coworkers describing unprofessional behavior by surgeons. Patients included in the NSQIP database who underwent inpatient or outpatient operations at 1 of the 2 participating sites from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2016, were eligible. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years on the date of the operation or if the attending surgeon had less than 36 months of monitoring for coworker reports preceding the date of the operation. Data were analyzed from August 8, 2018, through April 9, 2019. Exposures: Coworker reports about unprofessional behavior by the surgeon in the 36 months preceding the date of the operation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative surgical or medical complications, as defined by the NSQIP, within 30 days of the operation. Results: Among 13 653 patients in the cohort (54.0% [7368 ] female; mean [SD] age, 57 [16] years) who underwent operations performed by 202 surgeons (70.8% [143] male), 1583 (11.6%) experienced a complication, including 825 surgical (6.0%) and 1070 medical (7.8%) complications. Patients whose surgeons had more coworker reports were significantly more likely to experience any complication (0 reports, 954 of 8916 [10.7%]; ≥4 reports, 294 of 2087 [14.1%]; P < .001), any surgical complication (0 reports, 516 of 8916 [5.8%]; ≥4 reports, 159 of 2087 [7.6%]; P < .01), or any medical complication (0 reports, 634 of 8916 [7.1%]; ≥4 reports, 196 of 2087 [9.4%]; P < .001). The adjusted complication rate was 14.3% higher for patients whose surgeons had 1 to 3 reports and 11.9% higher for patients whose surgeons had 4 or more reports compared with patients whose surgeons had no coworker reports (P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients whose surgeons had higher numbers of coworker reports about unprofessional behavior in the 36 months before the patient's operation appeared to be at increased risk of surgical and medical complications. These findings suggest that organizations interested in ensuring optimal patient outcomes should focus on addressing surgeons whose behavior toward other medical professionals may increase patients' risk for adverse outcomes.

Unsolicited Patient Complaints Identify Physicians with Evidence of Neurocognitive Disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Determine whether words contained in unsolicited patient complaints differentiate physicians with and without neurocognitive disorders (NCD). METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study using data from 144 healthcare organizations that participate in the Patient Advocacy Reporting System program. Cases (physicians with probable or possible NCD) and two comparison groups of 60 physicians each (matched for age/sex and site/number of unsolicited patient complaints) were identified from 33,814 physicians practicing at study sites. We compared the frequency of words in patient complaints related to an NCD diagnostic domain between cases and our two comparison groups. RESULTS: Individual words were all statistically more likely to appear in patient complaints for cases (73% of cases had at least one such word) compared to age/sex matched (8%, p < 0.001 using Pearson's χ2 test, χ2 = 30.21, df = 1) and site/complaint matched comparisons (18%, p < 0.001 using Pearson's χ2 test, χ2 = 17.51, df = 1). Cases were significantly more likely to have at least one complaint with any word describing NCD than the two comparison groups combined (conditional logistic model adjusted odds ratio 20.0 [95% confidence interval 4.9-81.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of words in unsolicited patient complaints found that descriptions of interactions with physicians with NCD were significantly more likely to include words from one of the diagnostic domains for NCD than were two different comparison groups. Further research is needed to understand whether patients might provide information for healthcare organizations interested in identifying professionals with evidence of cognitive impairment.

Use of Unsolicited Patient Observations to Identify Surgeons With Increased Risk for Postoperative Complications.

Importance: Unsolicited patient observations are associated with risk of medical malpractice claims. Because lawsuits may be triggered by an unexpected adverse outcome superimposed on a strained patient-physician relationship, a question remains as to whether behaviors that generate patient dissatisfaction might also contribute to the genesis of adverse outcomes themselves. Objective: To examine whether patients of surgeons with a history of higher numbers of unsolicited patient observations are at greater risk for postoperative complications than patients whose surgeons generate fewer such unsolicited patient observations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from 7 academic medical centers participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Vanderbilt Patient Advocacy Reporting System from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013. Patients older than 18 years included in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent inpatient or outpatient operations at 1 of the participating sites during the study period were included. Patients were excluded if the attending surgeon had less than 24 months of data in the Vanderbilt Patient Advocacy Reporting System preceding the date of the operation. Data analysis was conducted from June 1, 2015, to October 20, 2016. Exposures: Unsolicited patient observations for the patient's surgeon in the 24 months preceding the date of the operation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative surgical or medical complications as defined by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program within 30 days of the operation of interest. Results: Among the 32 125 patients in the cohort (13 230 men, 18 895 women; mean [SD] age, 55.8 [15.8] years), 3501 (10.9%) experienced a complication, including 1754 (5.5%) surgical and 2422 (7.5%) medical complications. Prior unsolicited patient observations for a surgeon were significantly associated with the risk of a patient having any complication (odds ratio, 1.0063; 95% CI, 1.0004-1.0123; P = .03), any surgical complication (odds ratio, 1.0104; 95% CI, 1.0022-1.0186; P = .01), any medical complication (odds ratio, 1.0079; 95% CI, 1.0009-1.0148; P = .03), and being readmitted (odds ratio, 1.0088, 95% CI, 1.0024-1.0151; P = .007). The adjusted rate of complications was 13.9% higher for patients whose surgeon was in the highest quartile of unsolicited patient observations compared with patients whose surgeon was in the lowest quartile. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients whose surgeons have large numbers of unsolicited patient observations in the 24 months prior to the patient's operation are at increased risk of surgical and medical complications. Efforts to promote patient safety and address risk of malpractice claims should continue to focus on surgeons' ability to communicate respectfully and effectively with patients and other medical professionals.

Using Coworker Observations to Promote Accountability for Disrespectful and Unsafe Behaviors by Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Health care team members are well positioned to observe disrespectful and unsafe conduct-behaviors known to undermine team function. Based on experience in sharing patient complaints with physicians who subsequently achieved decreased complaints and malpractice risk, Vanderbilt University Medical Center developed and assessed the feasibility of the Co-Worker Observation Reporting System(SM) (CORS (SM)) for addressing coworkers' reported concerns. METHODS: VUMC leaders used a "Project Bundle" readiness assessment, which entailed identification and development of key people, organizational supports, and systems. Methods involved gaining leadership buy-in, recruiting and training key individuals, aligning the project with organizational values and policies, promoting reporting, monitoring reports, and employing a tiered intervention process to address reported coworker concerns. RESULTS: Peer messengers shared coworker reports with the physicians and advanced practice professionals associated with at least one report 84% of the time. Since CORS inception, 3% of the medical staff was associated with a pattern of CORS reports, and 71% of recipients of pattern-related interventions were not named in any subsequent reports in a one-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic monitoring of documented co-worker observations about unprofessional conduct and sharing that information with involved professionals are feasible. Feasibility requires organizationwide implementation; co-workers willing and able to share respectful, nonjudgmental, timely feedback designed initially to encourage self-reflection; and leadership committed to be more directive if needed. Follow-up surveillance indicates that the majority of professionals "self-regulate" after receiving CORS data.

An intervention model that promotes accountability: peer messengers and patient/family complaints.

BACKGROUND: Patients and their families are well positioned to partner with health care organizations to help identify unsafe and dissatisfying behaviors and performance. A peer messenger process was designed by the Center for Professional and Patient Advocacy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Nashville, Tennessee) to address "high-risk" physicians identified through analysis of unsolicited patient complaints, a proxy for risk of lawsuits. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study used peer messenger debriefing results from data-driven interventions at 16 geographically disparate community (n = 7) and academic (n = 9) medical centers in the United States. Some 178 physicians served as peer messengers, conducting interventions from 2005, through 2009 on 373 physicians identified as high risk. RESULTS: Most (97%) of the high-risk physicians received the feedback professionally, and 64% were "Responders." Responders' risk scores improved at least 15%, where Nonresponders' scores worsened (17%) or remained unchanged (19%) (p < or = .001). Responders were more often physicians practicing in medicine and surgery than emergency medicine physicians, had longer organizational tenures, and engaged in lengthier first-time intervention meetings with messengers. Years to achieve responder status correlated positively with initial communication-related complaints (r = .32, p < .001), but all complaint categories were equally likely to change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Peer messengers, recognized by leaders and appropriately supported with ongoing training, high-quality data, and evidence of positive outcomes, are willing to intervene with colleagues over an extended period of time. The physician peer messenger process reduces patient complaints and is adaptable to addressing unnecessary variation in other quality/safety metrics.

Medical malpractice claims risk in urology: an empirical analysis of patient complaint data.

PURPOSE: Patient complaints are associated with physician risk management experience, including medical malpractice claims risk, and small proportions of physicians account for disproportionate shares of claims. We investigated whether patient complaint experience differs among urologists, and whether urological subspecialists generate distinct quantities and types of complaints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study examined 1,516 unsolicited patient complaints filed against 268 urologists. Patient complaint and urological subspecialty data were collected from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007 for 15 geographically diverse health systems. The cohort urologists were assigned medical malpractice claims risk scores and complaint type profiles. A weighted sum algorithm produced risk scores from 4 consecutive years of complaint data and complaint type profiles were generated using a standardized coding system. Statistical analyses tested the associations among risk score, complaint type profile and urological subspecialty. Complaint type profile and subspecialty distribution were assessed for urologists in the cohort top decile for risk scores. RESULTS: Overall 125 (47%) urologists were associated with 0 patient complaints, while 30 (11%) urologists were associated with 758 (50%) of the patient complaints. Subspecialty and distribution of risk scores were significantly associated (p <0.001). Calculi and oncology subspecialist distributions suggest greater overall risk. Complaint types also varied among subspecialists (p = 0.02). There was no association between top decile urologists and complaint type profile (p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited patient complaints were nonrandomly distributed among urologists and urological subspecialties. Monitoring patient complaints may allow for early identification of and intervention with high risk urologists before malpractice claims accumulate.

Best practices for basic and advanced skills in health care service recovery: a case study of a re-admitted patient.

BACKGROUND: Service recovery refers to an organizations entire process for facilitating resolution of dissatisfactions, whether or not visible to patients and families. Patients are an important resource for reporting miscommunications, provider inattention, rudeness, or delays, especially if they perceive a connection to misdiagnosis or failed treatment. Health systems that encourage patients to be "the eyes and ears" of individual and team performance capitalize on a rich source of data for quality improvement and risk prevention. Effective service recovery requires organizations (1) to learn about negative perceptions and experiences and (2) to create an infrastructure that supports staff's ability to respond. Service recovery requires the exercise of both basic and advanced skills. We term certain skills as advanced because of the significant variation in their use or endorsement among 30 health care organizations in the United States. BEST PRACTICES FOR BASIC SERVICE RECOVERY: On the basis of our work with the 30 organizations, a mnemonic, HEARD, incorporates best practices for basic service recovery processes: Hearing the person's concern; Empathizing with the person raising the issue; Acknowledging, expressing appreciation to the person for sharing, and Apologizing when warranted; Responding to the problem, setting time lines and expectations for follow-up; and Documenting or Delegating the documentation to the appropriate person. BEST PRACTICES FOR ADVANCED SERVICE RECOVERY: Impartiality, chain of command, setting boundaries, and Documentation represent four advanced service recovery skills critical for addressing challenging situations. CONCLUSION: Using best practices in service recovery enables the organization to do its best to make right what patients and family members experience as wrong.

The ethical health lawyer: an empirical assessment of moral decision making.

Writing in 1999, legal ethics scholar Brad Wendel noted that "[v]ery little empirical work has been done on the moral decision making of lawyers." Indeed, since the mid-1990s, few empirical studies have attempted to explore how attorneys deliberate about ethical dilemmas they encounter in their practice. Moreover, while past research has explored some of the ethical issues confronting lawyers practicing in certain specific areas of practice, no published data exists probing the moral mind of health care lawyers. As signaled by the creation of a regular column "devoted to ethical issues arising in the practice of health law" in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, the time to address the empirical gap in the professional ethics literature is now. Accordingly, this article presents data collected from 120 health care lawyers. Presenting this population with a number of hypothetical scenarios relating to how they would respond when confronting an ethical dilemma without an obvious solution or when facing a situation in which their personal values were in tension with their professional obligations, this article represents a first step toward better understanding how lawyers who practice in health care settings understand and resolve the moral discomfort they encounter in their professional lives.