Dataset Information

Korean physicians' perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: The present study investigated physicians' perceptions regarding the need for, effects of, and barriers to disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI). An anonymous online questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate physicians' perception regarding DPSI, in particular of when DPSI was needed in various situations and of methods for facilitating DPSI. Physicians' perceptions were then compared to the general public's perceptions regarding DPSI identified in a previous study. A total of 910 physicians participated. Most participants (94.9%) agreed that any serious medical error should be disclosed to patients and their caregivers, whereas only 39.8% agreed that even near-miss errors, which did not cause harm to patients, should be disclosed. Among the six known effects of DPSI presented, participating physicians showed the highest level of agreement (89.6%) that "DPSI will lead physicians to pay more attention to patient safety in the future." Among six barriers to DPSI, participants showed the most agreement (75.9%) that "It is unreasonable to demand DPSI in only the medical field, and disclosure is not actively conducted in other fields." With respect to methods for facilitating DPSI, participants agreed that "A guideline for DPSI is needed" (91.2%) and "Manpower to support DPSI in hospitals is required" (89.1%). Meanwhile, 79.3% agreed that "If an apology law is enacted, physicians will perform more DPSI" and 72.4% that "I support the introduction of an apology law." Korean physicians generally have a positive perception of DPSI, but less than the general public.

SUBMITTER: Pyo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7544042 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Korean physicians' perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study.

Pyo Jeehee J Choi Eun Young EY Lee Won W Jang Seung Gyeong SG Park Young-Kwon YK Ock Minsu M Lee Sang-Il SI

PloS one 20201008 10

The present study investigated physicians' perceptions regarding the need for, effects of, and barriers to disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI). An anonymous online questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate physicians' perception regarding DPSI, in particular of when DPSI was needed in various situations and of methods for facilitating DPSI. Physicians' perceptions were then compared to the general public's perceptions regarding DPSI identified in a previous study. A total of 91 ...[more]

PMID: 33031473

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medical professionals who experience patient safety incidents (PSIs) are vulnerable to emotional pain and other difficulties; such individuals are referred to as "second victims." This study quantitatively examines the characteristics of physicians' experiences of PSIs, along with the consequent difficulties and levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and post-traumatic embitterment disorder (PTED) regarding the events. METHODS:An anonymous, self-report online survey was administered to physicians. This collected information regarding PSI characteristics (e.g., type, severity of harm) and impact (e.g., sleep disorder, consideration of career change), as well as participants' socio-demographic characteristics. Meanwhile, to quantitatively assess PSI impacts, PTSD and PTED scales were also administered. PSI characteristics and impacts were analyzed using frequency analysis, and the differing effects of indirect and direct PSI experience regarding consequent difficulties were analyzed using chi-square tests. Factors associated with PTSD and PTED scores were identified using linear regression. RESULTS:Of 895 physicians, 24.6% and 24.0% experienced PSI-induced sleep disorder and eating disorder, respectively. Moreover, 38.9% reported being overly cautious in subsequent similar situations, and 12.6% had considered changing jobs or career. Sleep disorder was significantly more common among participants who directly experienced a PSI (32.8%) than among those with indirect experience (15.3%; P < 0.001). Linear regression showed that indirectly involved physicians had a lower mean PTSD score (by 8.44; 95% confidence interval, -12.28 to -4.60) than directly involved physicians. CONCLUSION:This study found that many physicians experience PSI-induced physical symptoms and behavioral responses, and that the severity of these symptoms varies depending on the type of incident and degree of harm involved. Our findings can provoke more active discussion regarding programs for supporting second victims, and can also encourage the establishing of a system for addressing PSIs that have already occurred, such as through disclosure of PSIs.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the scope and severity of the second victim problem among nurses by examining the experiences and effects of patient safety incidents (PSIs) on them.Participants/setting492 nurses who had experienced PSIs and provide direct care in South Korean medical institutions.DesignA cross-sectional study with anonymous online self-report questionnaires was conducted to nurses in order to examine the experiences and effects of PSIs. Scales measuring post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and post-traumatic embitterment disorder (PTED) were used for a more quantitative examination of the effects of PSIs. A ?2 test was administered to find any difference in responses to difficulties due to PSIs between the direct and indirect experience of PSIs. Furthermore, linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate the factors related to scores on the PTSD and PTED scales.ResultsA statistically significant difference was observed for participants who reported having experienced sleeping disorders, with those with direct experience showing 42.4% sleeping disorders and indirect experience at 21.0%. Also, there was a statistically significant difference between the 34.3% with direct experience and the 22.1% with indirect experience regarding having considered duty or job changes (resignation). Regression analysis showed total PTSD scores for indirect experience at 11.97 points (95% CI: -17.31 to -6.63), lower than direct experience. Moreover, those who thought the medical error was not involved in PSI had a total PTED score 4.39 points (95% CI: -7.23 to -1.55) lower than those who thought it was involved.ConclusionsA considerable number of nurses experienced psychological difficulties due to PSIs at levels that could interfere with their work. The effect of PSIs on nurses with direct experience of PSIs was greater compared with those with indirect experience. There need to be psychological support programmes for nurses to alleviate the negative effects of PSIs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea. METHODS:We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with 16 physicians and 18 members of the general public. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were performed according to semi-structured guidelines developed according to a systematic review of open disclosure. We conducted a directed content analysis by analyzing the verbatim transcripts and field notes in accordance with the predetermined guidelines. RESULTS:Open disclosure perceptions were summarized in terms of the "five Ws and one H" (who, what, where, when, why, and how). All physician and general public participants acknowledged the normative justifiability of open disclosure. The participants mostly agreed on the known effects of open disclosure, but the physicians had negative opinions on its expected effects, such as decreased intention of the general public to file lawsuits and increased credibility of medical professionals. Generally, the participants thought that open disclosure is required for medical errors causing major harm. However, the physicians and general public had conflicting opinions on the need for open disclosure of near misses. Most physicians did not know how to conduct open disclosure and some physicians had bad experiences due to inappropriate or incomplete open disclosure. CONCLUSION:Physicians and the general public in Korea acknowledge the need for open disclosure. Guidelines according to the type of patient safety incident are required to encourage physicians to more readily conduct open disclosure. Furthermore, hospitals need to consider organizing a dedicated team and hiring experts for open disclosure.

Project description:BackgroundPatient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.ParticipantsAdult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.MeasuresPatients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented.ResultsA total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent.ConclusionsThe nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

Dataset Information

Korean physicians' perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study.

Publications

Korean physicians' perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets