Kelly Therese Gleason1, Rebecca Jones2, Christopher Rhodes1, Penny Greenberg3, Gene Harkless4, Chris Goeschel5, Maureen Cahill6, Mark Graber7. 1. From the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 3. CRICO Strategies, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. 5. MedStar Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is a pressing need for nurses to contribute as equals to the diagnostic process. The purpose of this article is twofold: (a) to describe the contributing factors in diagnosis-related and failure-to-monitor malpractice claims in which nurses are named the primary responsible party and (b) to describe actions healthcare leaders can take to enhance the role of nurses in diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a review of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Strategies' repository of malpractice claims, which contain approximately 30% of United States claims. We analyzed the malpractice claims related to diagnosis (n = 139) and physiologic monitoring (n = 647) naming nurses as the primary responsible party from 2007 to 2016. We used logistic regression to determine the association of contributing factors to likelihood of death, indemnity, and expenses incurred. RESULTS: Diagnosis-related cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with a significantly higher likelihood of death (odds ratio [OR] = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-6.03). Physiologic monitoring cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with significantly higher likelihood of death (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.49-3.27), higher indemnity incurred (U.S. $86,781, 95% CI = $18,058-$175,505), and higher expenses incurred (U.S. $20,575, 95% CI = $3685-$37,465). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses are held legally accountable for their role in diagnosis. Raising system-wide awareness of the critical role and responsibility of nurses in the diagnostic process and enhancing nurses' knowledge and skill to fulfill those responsibilities are essential to improving diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: There is a pressing need for nurses to contribute as equals to the diagnostic process. The purpose of this article is twofold: (a) to describe the contributing factors in diagnosis-related and failure-to-monitor malpractice claims in which nurses are named the primary responsible party and (b) to describe actions healthcare leaders can take to enhance the role of nurses in diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a review of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Strategies' repository of malpractice claims, which contain approximately 30% of United States claims. We analyzed the malpractice claims related to diagnosis (n = 139) and physiologic monitoring (n = 647) naming nurses as the primary responsible party from 2007 to 2016. We used logistic regression to determine the association of contributing factors to likelihood of death, indemnity, and expenses incurred. RESULTS: Diagnosis-related cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with a significantly higher likelihood of death (odds ratio [OR] = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-6.03). Physiologic monitoring cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with significantly higher likelihood of death (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.49-3.27), higher indemnity incurred (U.S. $86,781, 95% CI = $18,058-$175,505), and higher expenses incurred (U.S. $20,575, 95% CI = $3685-$37,465). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses are held legally accountable for their role in diagnosis. Raising system-wide awareness of the critical role and responsibility of nurses in the diagnostic process and enhancing nurses' knowledge and skill to fulfill those responsibilities are essential to improving diagnosis.
Authors: Tyler W Barrett; Alan B Storrow; Cathy A Jenkins; Robert L Abraham; Dandan Liu; Karen F Miller; Kelly M Moser; Stephan Russ; Dan M Roden; Frank E Harrell; Dawood Darbar Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Tejal K Gandhi; Allen Kachalia; Eric J Thomas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Catherine Yoon; Troyen A Brennan; David M Studdert Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David E Newman-Toker; Adam C Schaffer; C Winnie Yu-Moe; Najlla Nassery; Ali S Saber Tehrani; Gwendolyn D Clemens; Zheyu Wang; Yuxin Zhu; Mehdi Fanai; Dana Siegal Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2019-08-27
Authors: Kelly T Gleason; Patricia M Davidson; Elizabeth K Tanner; Diana Baptiste; Cynda Rushton; Jennifer Day; Melinda Sawyer; Deborah Baker; Lori Paine; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; David E Newman-Toker Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2017-11-27
Authors: Gooske Douw; Getty Huisman-de Waal; Arthur R H van Zanten; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Lisette Schoonhoven Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2017-02-19 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Gooske Douw; Lisette Schoonhoven; Tineke Holwerda; Getty Huisman-de Waal; Arthur R H van Zanten; Theo van Achterberg; Johannes G van der Hoeven Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 9.097