Dataset Information

A comparison of calls subjected to a malpractice claim versus 'normal calls' within the Swedish healthcare direct: a case-control study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to compare communication patterns in calls subjected to a malpractice claim with matched controls.

Setting

In many countries, telephone advice nursing is patients' first contact with healthcare. Telenurses' assessment of callers' symptoms and needs are based on verbal communication only, and problems with over-triage and under-triage have been reported.

Participants

A total sample of all reported medical errors (n=33) during the period 2003-2010 within Swedish Healthcare Direct was retrieved. Corresponding calls were thereafter identified and collected as sound files from the manager in charge at the respective call centres. For technical reasons, calls from four of the cases were not possible to retrieve. For the present study, matched control calls (n=26) based on the patient's age, gender and main symptom presented by the caller were collected.

Results

Male patients were in majority (n=16), and the most common reasons for calling were abdominal pain (n=10) and chest pain (n=5). There were statistically significant differences between the communication in the cases and controls: telenurses used fewer open-ended medical questions (p<0.001) in the cases compared to the control calls; callers provided telenurses with more medical information in the control calls compared to the cases (p=0.001); and telenurses used more facilitation and patient activation activities in the control calls (p=0.034), such as back-channel response (p=0.001), compared to the cases.

Conclusions

The present study shows that telenurses in malpractice claimed calls used more closed-ended questioning compared to those in control calls, who used more open-ended questioning and back-channel response, which provided them with richer medical descriptions and more information from the caller. Hence, these communicative techniques are important in addition to solid medical and nursing competence and sound decision aid systems.

SUBMITTER: Ernesater A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4187455 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of calls subjected to a malpractice claim versus 'normal calls' within the Swedish healthcare direct: a case-control study.

Ernesäter Annica A Engström Maria M Winblad Ulrika U Holmström Inger K IK

BMJ open 20141003 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>The purpose of this study is to compare communication patterns in calls subjected to a malpractice claim with matched controls.<h4>Setting</h4>In many countries, telephone advice nursing is patients' first contact with healthcare. Telenurses' assessment of callers' symptoms and needs are based on verbal communication only, and problems with over-triage and under-triage have been reported.<h4>Participants</h4>A total sample of all reported medical errors (n=33) during the perio ...[more]

PMID: 25280808

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveClinicians may hesitate to advocate for autopsies out of concern for increased malpractice risk if the pathological findings at time of death differ from the clinical findings. We aimed to understand the impact of autopsy findings on malpractice claim outcomes.MethodsClosed malpractice claims with loss dates between 1995 and 2015 involving death related to inpatient care at 3 Harvard Medical School hospitals were extracted from a captive malpractice insurer's database. These claims were linked to patients' electronic health records and their autopsy reports. Using the Goldman classification system, 2 physician reviewers blinded to claim outcome determined whether there was major, minor, or no discordance between the final clinical diagnoses and pathologic diagnoses. Claims were compared depending on whether an autopsy was performed and whether there was major versus minor/no clinical-pathologic discordance. Primary outcomes included percentage of claims paid through settlement or plaintiff verdict and the amount of indemnity paid, inflation adjusted.ResultsOf 293 malpractice claims related to an inpatient death that could be linked to patients' electronic health records, 89 claims (30%) had an autopsy performed by either the hospital or medical examiner. The most common claim allegation was an issue with clinician diagnosis, which was statistically less common in the autopsy group (18% versus 38%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in percentage of claims paid whether an autopsy was performed or not (42% versus 41%, P = 0.90) and no difference in median indemnity of paid claims after adjusting for number of defendants ($1,180,537 versus $906,518, P = 0.15). Thirty-one percent of claims with hospital autopsies performed demonstrated major discordance between autopsy and clinical findings. Claims with major clinical-pathologic discordance also did not have a statistically significant difference in percentage paid (44% versus 41%, P > 0.99) or amount paid ($895,954 versus $1,494,120, P = 0.10) compared with claims with minor or no discordance.ConclusionsAlthough multiple factors determine malpractice claim outcome, in this cohort, claims in which an autopsy was performed did not result in more paid outcomes, even when there was major discordance between clinical and pathologic diagnoses.

Project description:BackgroundUsing malpractice claims cases as vignettes is a promising approach for improving clinical reasoning education (CRE), as malpractice claims can provide a variety of content- and context-rich examples. However, the effect on learning of adding information about a malpractice claim, which may evoke a deeper emotional response, is not yet clear. This study examined whether knowing that a diagnostic error resulted in a malpractice claim affects diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis of future cases. Moreover, suitability of using erroneous cases with and without a malpractice claim for CRE, as judged by participants, was evaluated.MethodsIn the first session of this two-phased, within-subjects experiment, 81 first-year residents of general practice (GP) were exposed to both erroneous cases with (M) and erroneous cases without (NM) malpractice claim information, derived from a malpractice claims database. Participants rated suitability of the cases for CRE on a five-point Likert scale. In the second session, one week later, participants solved four different cases with the same diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with three questions, scored on a 0-1 scale: (1) What is your next step? (2) What is your differential diagnosis? (3) What is your most probable diagnosis and what is your level of certainty on this? Both subjective suitability and diagnostic accuracy scores were compared between the versions (M and NM) using repeated measures ANOVA.ResultsThere were no differences in diagnostic accuracy parameters (M vs. NM next step: 0.79 vs. 0.77, p = 0.505; differential diagnosis 0.68 vs. 0.75, p = 0.072; most probable diagnosis 0.52 vs. 0.57, p = 0.216) and self-reported confidence (53.7% vs. 55.8% p = 0.390) of diagnoses previously seen with or without malpractice claim information. Subjective suitability- and complexity scores for the two versions were similar (suitability: 3.68 vs. 3.84, p = 0.568; complexity 3.71 vs. 3.88, p = 0.218) and significantly increased for higher education levels for both versions.ConclusionThe similar diagnostic accuracy rates between cases studied with or without malpractice claim information suggests both versions are equally effective for CRE in GP training. Residents judged both case versions to be similarly suitable for CRE; both were considered more suitable for advanced than for novice learners.

Project description:BackgroundAn evaluation of NHS Direct Wales (NHSDW), a national telephone-based healthcare advice and information service, was undertaken. A key objective was to describe the actions of callers and assess the appropriateness of advice and healthcare contacts made following calls, results of which are reported here.MethodsPostal questionnaires were sent to consecutive callers to NHSDW in May 2002 and February 2004 to determine 1) callers' actions following calls and 2) their views about the appropriateness of: advice given; and when to seek further care. An independent clinical panel agreed and applied a set of rules about healthcare sites where examinations, investigations, treatments and referrals could be obtained. The rules were then applied to the subsequent contacts to healthcare services reported by respondents and actions were classified in terms of whether they had been necessary and sufficient for the care received.ResultsResponse rates were similar in each survey: 1033/1897 (54.5%); 606/1204 (50.3%), with 75% reporting contacting NHSDW. In both surveys, nearly half of all callers reported making no further healthcare contact after their call to NHSDW. The most frequent subsequent contacts made were with GPs.More than four fifths of callers rated the advice given - concerning any further care needed and when to seek it - as appropriate (further care needed: survey 1: 673/729, 82.3%; survey 2: 389/421, 92.4%; when to seek further care - survey 1: 462/555, 83.2%; survey 2: n = 295/346, 85.3%). A similar proportion of cases was also rated through the rule set and backed up by the clinical panel as having taken necessary and sufficient actions following their calls to NHSDW (survey 1: 624/729, 80.6%; survey 2: 362/421, 84.4%), with more unnecessary than insufficient actions identified at each survey (survey 1: unnecessary 132/729, 17.1% versus insufficient 11/729, 1.4%; survey 2: unnecessary 47/421, 11.0% versus insufficient 14/421, 3.3%).ConclusionBased on NHSDW caller surveys responses and applying a transparent rule set to caller actions a large majority of subsequent actions were assessed as appropriate, with insufficient contacts particularly infrequent. The challenge for NHSDW is to reduce the number of unnecessary contacts made following calls to the service, whilst maintaining safety.

Project description:BackgroundThe results of germline genetic testing for hereditary cancer are of importance not only to the patients under investigation but also to their genetic at-risk relatives. Standard care is to encourage the proband (first family member under investigation) to pass on this risk information to the relatives. Previous research suggests that with family-mediated disclosure, only about a third of at-risk relatives contact health care to receive genetic counselling. In some studies, complementing family-mediated risk disclosure with healthcare-assisted risk disclosure almost doubles the uptake of genetic counselling in at-risk relatives. In this study, we evaluate healthcare-assisted direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsProbands are recruited from Swedish outpatient cancer genetics clinics to this two-arm randomized controlled trial. The study recruits probands with either a pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) or probands with familial breast and colorectal cancer based on clinical and pedigree criteria. In both arms, probands receive standard care, i.e., are encouraged and supported to pass on information to relatives. In the intervention arm, the proband is also offered to have direct letters sent to the at-risk relatives. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of at-risk relatives contacting a Swedish cancer genetics clinic within 12 months of the proband receiving the test results.DiscussionThis paper describes the protocol of a randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating a healthcare-assisted approach to risk disclosure by offering the probands to send direct letters to their at-risk relatives. The results of this study should be informative in the future development of risk disclosure practices in cancer genetics clinics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier NCT04197856 (pre-trial registration on December 13, 2019). Also registered at the website "RCC Cancerstudier i Sverige" as study #86719.

Dataset Information

A comparison of calls subjected to a malpractice claim versus 'normal calls' within the Swedish healthcare direct: a case-control study.

Objectives

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A comparison of calls subjected to a malpractice claim versus 'normal calls' within the Swedish healthcare direct: a case-control study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets