Disclosing Adverse Events to Patients: International Norms and Trends.

OBJECTIVES: There is a growing expectation in health systems around the world that patients will be fully informed when adverse events occur. However, current disclosure practices often fall short of this expectation. METHODS: We reviewed trends in policy and practice in 5 countries with extensive experience with adverse event disclosure: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. RESULTS: We identified 5 themes that reflect key challenges to disclosure: (1) the challenge of putting policy into large-scale practice, (2) the conflict between patient safety theory and patient expectations, (3) the conflict between legal privilege for quality improvement and open disclosure, (4) the challenge of aligning open disclosure with liability compensation, and (5) the challenge of measurement related to disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: Potential solutions include health worker education coupled with incentives to embed policy into practice, better communication about approaches beyond the punitive, legislation that allows both disclosure to patients and quality improvement protection for institutions, apology protection for providers, comprehensive disclosure programs that include patient compensation, delinking of patient compensation from regulatory scrutiny of disclosing physicians, legal and contractual requirements for disclosure, and better measurement of its occurrence and quality. A longer-term solution involves educating the public and health care workers about patient safety.

Disclosure of adverse events in the United States and Canada: an update, and a proposed framework for improvement.

There is consensus that physicians, health professionals and health care organizations should discuss harm that results from health care delivery (adverse events), including the reasons for harm, with patients and their families. Thought leaders and policy makers in the USA and Canada support this goal. However, there are gaps in both countries between patients and physicians in their attitudes about how errors should be handled, and between disclosure policies and their implementation in practice. This paper reviews the state of disclosure policy and practice in the two countries, and the barriers to full disclosure. Important barriers include fear of consequences, attitudes about disclosure, lack of skill and role models, and lack of peer and institutional support. The paper also describes the problem of the second victim, a corollary of disclosure whereby health care workers are also traumatized by the same events that harm patients. The presence of multiple practical and personal barriers to disclosure suggests the need for a comprehensive solution directed at multiple levels of the health care system, including health departments, institutions, local managers, professional staff, patients and families, and including legal, health system and local institutional support. At the local level, implementation could be based on a translating-evidence-into-practice framework. Applying this framework would involve the formation of teams, training, measurement and identification of local barriers to achieving universal disclosure of adverse events. Significance for public healthIt is inevitable that some patients will be harmed rather than helped by health care. There is consensus that patients and their families must be told about these harmful events. However, there are gaps between patient and physician attitudes about how errors should be handled, and between disclosure policies and their implementation. There are important barriers that impede disclosure, including fear of consequences, attitudes about disclosure, lack of skill, and lack of institutional support. A related problem is that of the second victim, whereby health care workers are traumatized by the same harmful events. This can impair their performance and further compromise safety. The problem is unlikely to be solved by focusing solely on increasing disclosure. A comprehensive solution is needed, directed at multiple levels of the health care system, including health departments, institutions, local managers, professional staff, patients and families, and including legal, health system and local institutional support.

Limited health literacy is a common finding in a public health hospital's rheumatology clinic and is predictive of disease severity.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is associated with outcomes in many conditions, but little is known about its impact on arthritic diseases. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether HL is related to disease activity and severity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: English-speaking adult RA patients were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Background information was ascertained by medical record review; Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS-28) scores were determined by providers; subjects completed the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ), demographic questionnaires, and validated HL instruments, including the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults, Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, and the single-item literacy screener. We used linear regression to assess whether HL was associated with MDHAQ and DAS-28 scores. RESULTS: One hundred ten subjects participated in the study. Limited HL was a common finding, especially among ethnic minorities. The single-item literacy screener results were predictive of lower MDHAQ scores by univariate regression analysis. Similar trends were observed for the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults and Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine. The relationship between the single-item literacy screener and MDHAQ remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis that controlled for the impact of demographic features and RA disease characteristics. Health literacy scores were not associated with DAS-28 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Health literacy was independently associated with functional impairment in English-speaking RA patients at an urban safety-net clinic. This new finding suggests that RA functional status might be improved by strategies that target limited HL's causal pathways.

Wrong-site and wrong-patient procedures in the universal protocol era: analysis of a prospective database of physician self-reported occurrences.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, root cause, and outcome of wrong-site and wrong-patient procedures in the era of the Universal Protocol. DESIGN: Analysis of a prospective physician insurance database performed from January 1, 2002, to June 1, 2008. Deidentified cases were screened using predefined taxonomy filters, and data were analyzed by evaluation criteria defined a priori. SETTING: Colorado. PATIENTS: Database contained 27 370 physician self-reported adverse occurrences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were generated to examine the characteristics of the reporting physicians, the number of adverse events reported per year, and the root causes and occurrence-related patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 25 wrong-patient and 107 wrong-site procedures were identified during the study period. Significant harm was inflicted in 5 wrong-patient procedures (20.0%) and 38 wrong-site procedures (35.5%). One patient died secondary to a wrong-site procedure (0.9%). The main root causes leading to wrong-patient procedures were errors in diagnosis (56.0%) and errors in communication (100%), whereas wrong-site occurrences were related to errors in judgment (85.0%) and the lack of performing a "time-out" (72.0%). Nonsurgical specialties were involved in the cause of wrong-patient procedures and contributed equally with surgical disciplines to adverse outcome related to wrong-site occurrences. CONCLUSIONS: These data reveal a persisting high frequency of surgical "never events." Strict adherence to the Universal Protocol must be expanded to nonsurgical specialties to promote a zero-tolerance philosophy for these preventable incidents.

Health literacy predicts the discrepancy between patient and provider global assessments of rheumatoid arthritis activity at a public urban rheumatology clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous studies report that significant discordance exists between patient and provider [physician] measures of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined whether health literacy explains this discordance. METHODS: We recruited English-speaking adult patients with RA for this cross-sectional study. Subjects completed 2 versions of patient global assessments of disease activity (PTGA), using standard terminology from the Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) and the 28-joint count Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28). The provider global assessment (MDGA) was also obtained. The discrepancy between PTGA and MDGA was calculated as the absolute difference between these assessments. We used validated instruments [Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM)] and linear regression to determine whether health literacy predicts disease measure discrepancy. RESULTS: The study included 110 subjects. Limited health literacy was a common finding by both the REALM and S-TOFHLA. PTGA and MDGA showed fair to good correlation (r = 0.66-0.68), although both versions of the PTGA were significantly higher than MDGA by the t-test (p < 0.001). The S-TOFHLA and REALM both were associated with the absolute difference between the MDGA and PTGA by linear regression, and results remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Health literacy was independently associated with the extent of discrepancy between PTGA and MDGA in English-speaking patients with RA at an urban clinic. This finding should influence our interpretation of disease measures.

A concise evaluation and management curriculum for physicians in training improved billing at an outpatient academic rheumatology clinic.

PURPOSE: To study whether providing house staff with a brief lecture and handout about proper documentation could improve billing at an academic rheumatology clinic. METHOD: The authors created an educational sheet about documentation and billing after a review of the common documentation omissions responsible for down coding (Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/RHU/A8). Beginning in November of 2006, the house staff were provided with this sheet and a brief lecture regarding how outpatient evaluation and management levels of service are coded. The results of clinic billing from January 1, 2006 to October 31, 2006 and November 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007 were obtained from the physician billing office. The authors compared the average level of service, by appointment type, in the prepost comparison periods using the student t test. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the level of service billed for new visits (P < 0.001), consults (P < 0.001), and return visits (P < 0.001) after November 1, 2006. The percentage of patients evaluated for the first time who were billed as consults improved from 15% to 78% (P < 0.001 by chi2). These changes resulted in $34,342 of additional billing during the postintervention period. DISCUSSION: A simple strategy for educating the house staff about proper documentation of the history, physical examination, and clinical decision making resulted in a significant improvement in an academic rheumatology division's outpatient billing.