Carolyn D Prouty1, Mary Beth Foglia2, Thomas H Gallagher3. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, USA. 3. Department of Medicine and Bioethics and Humanities in the University of Washington School of Medicine, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitals face a disclosure dilemma when large-scale adverse events affect multiple patients and the chance of harm is extremely low. Understanding the perspectives of patients who have received disclosures following such events could help institutions develop communication plans that are commensurate with the perceived or real harm and scale of the event. METHODS: A mailed survey was conducted in 2008 of 266 University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) patients who received written disclosure in 2004 about a large-scale, low-harm/low-risk adverse event involving an incomplete endoscope cleaning process. The survey measured patients' satisfaction with this disclosure, their concerns about healthcare outcomes, and their recommendations for future communication, given similar circumstances. RESULTS: Surveys were received from 127 of 266 (48 percent) of eligible respondents; 98 percent thought that UWMC was right to inform them about this event, and mean satisfaction with the disclosure was 7.7 on a 0 to 10 scale. Of the 127 respondents, 64 percent were somewhat or very concerned that the endoscope cleaning problem might cause them health problems; 60 percent reported their impressions of UWMC's honesty and integrity had increased; 31 percent said their perceptions of the quality of care had increased; 94 percent agreed that institutions should tell patients about any error in their care, even when the risk of harm was low, although 28 percent agreed that such notifications would make them anxious. Respondents who reported concern that the event could cause them health problems were less likely to be satisfied with the institution's disclosure. Patients cited their right to know information material to their own health and healthcare as an important reason for disclosure. CONCLUSION: Recipients of disclosure of a large-scale, low-harm/low-risk event overwhelmingly supported being told of the event and endorsed notification of patients for similar events in the future. Although informing patients may cause concern for some, institutions should ensure their disclosure policies and procedures reflect their patients' preferences.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals face a disclosure dilemma when large-scale adverse events affect multiple patients and the chance of harm is extremely low. Understanding the perspectives of patients who have received disclosures following such events could help institutions develop communication plans that are commensurate with the perceived or real harm and scale of the event. METHODS: A mailed survey was conducted in 2008 of 266 University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) patients who received written disclosure in 2004 about a large-scale, low-harm/low-risk adverse event involving an incomplete endoscope cleaning process. The survey measured patients' satisfaction with this disclosure, their concerns about healthcare outcomes, and their recommendations for future communication, given similar circumstances. RESULTS: Surveys were received from 127 of 266 (48 percent) of eligible respondents; 98 percent thought that UWMC was right to inform them about this event, and mean satisfaction with the disclosure was 7.7 on a 0 to 10 scale. Of the 127 respondents, 64 percent were somewhat or very concerned that the endoscope cleaning problem might cause them health problems; 60 percent reported their impressions of UWMC's honesty and integrity had increased; 31 percent said their perceptions of the quality of care had increased; 94 percent agreed that institutions should tell patients about any error in their care, even when the risk of harm was low, although 28 percent agreed that such notifications would make them anxious. Respondents who reported concern that the event could cause them health problems were less likely to be satisfied with the institution's disclosure. Patients cited their right to know information material to their own health and healthcare as an important reason for disclosure. CONCLUSION: Recipients of disclosure of a large-scale, low-harm/low-risk event overwhelmingly supported being told of the event and endorsed notification of patients for similar events in the future. Although informing patients may cause concern for some, institutions should ensure their disclosure policies and procedures reflect their patients' preferences.
Authors: A Rani Elwy; Barbara G Bokhour; Elizabeth M Maguire; Todd H Wagner; Steven M Asch; Allen L Gifford; Thomas H Gallagher; Janet M Durfee; Richard A Martinello; Susan Schiffner; Robert L Jesse Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Melissa K Schaefer; Kiran M Perkins; Ruth Link-Gelles; Alexander J Kallen; Priti R Patel; Joseph F Perz Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Todd H Wagner; Thomas Taylor; Elizabeth Cowgill; Steven M Asch; Pon Su; Barbara Bokhour; Janet Durfee; Richard A Martinello; Elizabeth Maguire; A Rani Elwy Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Elizabeth M Maguire; Barbara G Bokhour; Todd H Wagner; Steven M Asch; Allen L Gifford; Thomas H Gallagher; Janet M Durfee; Richard A Martinello; A Rani Elwy Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 2.655