S Basu1,2, H J Marcus3,4,2, P Sayal3, N Kitchen3, R Ley5, P J Hutchinson6,7, L Thorne3,7. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK. 2. Joint first authors. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK. 4. Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, UK. 5. Dorset County Hospital, Dorchester, UK. 6. Division of Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, UK. 7. Joint senior authors.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Statutory duty of candour was introduced in November 2014 for NHS bodies in England. Contained within the regulation were definitions regarding the threshold for what constitutes a notifiable patient safety incident. However, it can be difficult to determine when the process should be implemented. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the interpretation of these definitions by British neurosurgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All full (consultant) members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons were electronically invited to participate in an online survey. Surgeons were presented with 15 cases and asked to decide in the case of each one whether they would trigger the process of duty of candour. Cases were stratified according to their likelihood and severity. RESULTS: In all, 106/357 (29.7%) members participated in the survey. Responses varied widely, with almost no members triggering the process of duty of candour in cases where adverse events were common (greater than 10% likelihood) and required only outpatient follow-up (7/106; 6.6%), and almost all members doing so in cases where adverse events were rare (less than 0.1% likelihood) and resulted in death (102/106; 96.2%). However, there was clear equipoise in triggering the process of duty of candour in cases where adverse events were uncommon (0.1-10% likelihood) and resulted in moderate harm (38/106; 35.8%), severe harm (57/106; 53.8%) or death (49/106; 46.2%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable nationwide variation in the interpretation of definitions regarding the threshold for duty of candour. To this end, we propose a framework for the improved application of duty of candour in clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: Statutory duty of candour was introduced in November 2014 for NHS bodies in England. Contained within the regulation were definitions regarding the threshold for what constitutes a notifiable patient safety incident. However, it can be difficult to determine when the process should be implemented. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the interpretation of these definitions by British neurosurgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All full (consultant) members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons were electronically invited to participate in an online survey. Surgeons were presented with 15 cases and asked to decide in the case of each one whether they would trigger the process of duty of candour. Cases were stratified according to their likelihood and severity. RESULTS: In all, 106/357 (29.7%) members participated in the survey. Responses varied widely, with almost no members triggering the process of duty of candour in cases where adverse events were common (greater than 10% likelihood) and required only outpatient follow-up (7/106; 6.6%), and almost all members doing so in cases where adverse events were rare (less than 0.1% likelihood) and resulted in death (102/106; 96.2%). However, there was clear equipoise in triggering the process of duty of candour in cases where adverse events were uncommon (0.1-10% likelihood) and resulted in moderate harm (38/106; 35.8%), severe harm (57/106; 53.8%) or death (49/106; 46.2%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable nationwide variation in the interpretation of definitions regarding the threshold for duty of candour. To this end, we propose a framework for the improved application of duty of candour in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Duty of candour; Neurosurgery; Surgery; Survey
Authors: Roland Brian Büchter; Dennis Fechtelpeter; Marco Knelangen; Martina Ehrlich; Andreas Waltering Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 2.796