Molly Carney1, Tonya S King2, Anna Yumen3, Carissa Harnish-Cruz3, Renyta Scales3, Robert P Olympia4. 1. Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, USA. 2. Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, USA. 3. Emergency Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, USA. 4. Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical errors and adverse events may affect up to 7.5% of hospitalizations, although observational studies suggest the numbers could be even higher. Previous studies have shown that medical television (TV) shows may be a major driver when it comes to a patient's medical knowledge and perspectives. METHODS: Six episodes from the first season of eight medical TV series were analyzed by four reviewers. Demographics of the healthcare provider responsible for the error, demographics of the victim, type of error, setting of error, level of disability, and reporting of the error were recorded. Data was compared with event rates from US hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 242 medical errors (average 6.4/hr) were included in the analysis. The healthcare provider responsible for the error was often an attending physician (55.8%), while victims were often White (73.6%), males (55.0%), aged 16-44 years (50.8%). Errors in diagnosis (28.9%) and operative errors (19.4%) were most common. Compared with data from US hospitals, TV series depicted more errors in diagnosis (p<0.001) and fewer operative errors (p<0.001). The most common levels of disability following medical errors were emotional trauma (37.6%) and temporary injury (30.2%). Emotional trauma was significantly overrepresented and temporary injuries were underrepresented (p<0.001). Error was not reported to the victim in 49.2% of events. CONCLUSION: There were multiple discrepancies between errors depicted on TV and US hospital data. This may lead to viewer fear and anxiety that results in delays in seeking medical care and increased medicolegal cases. Healthcare systems should attempt to reduce the incidence of medical errors and adverse events by ensuring competencies of their providers, instituting methods of risk analysis and prevention, and training providers on methods of proper error disclosure.
BACKGROUND: Medical errors and adverse events may affect up to 7.5% of hospitalizations, although observational studies suggest the numbers could be even higher. Previous studies have shown that medical television (TV) shows may be a major driver when it comes to a patient's medical knowledge and perspectives. METHODS: Six episodes from the first season of eight medical TV series were analyzed by four reviewers. Demographics of the healthcare provider responsible for the error, demographics of the victim, type of error, setting of error, level of disability, and reporting of the error were recorded. Data was compared with event rates from US hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 242 medical errors (average 6.4/hr) were included in the analysis. The healthcare provider responsible for the error was often an attending physician (55.8%), while victims were often White (73.6%), males (55.0%), aged 16-44 years (50.8%). Errors in diagnosis (28.9%) and operative errors (19.4%) were most common. Compared with data from US hospitals, TV series depicted more errors in diagnosis (p<0.001) and fewer operative errors (p<0.001). The most common levels of disability following medical errors were emotional trauma (37.6%) and temporary injury (30.2%). Emotional trauma was significantly overrepresented and temporary injuries were underrepresented (p<0.001). Error was not reported to the victim in 49.2% of events. CONCLUSION: There were multiple discrepancies between errors depicted on TV and US hospital data. This may lead to viewer fear and anxiety that results in delays in seeking medical care and increased medicolegal cases. Healthcare systems should attempt to reduce the incidence of medical errors and adverse events by ensuring competencies of their providers, instituting methods of risk analysis and prevention, and training providers on methods of proper error disclosure.
Authors: Adam C Schaffer; Anupam B Jena; Seth A Seabury; Harnam Singh; Venkat Chalasani; Allen Kachalia Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: E J Thomas; D M Studdert; H R Burstin; E J Orav; T Zeena; E J Williams; K M Howard; P C Weiler; T A Brennan Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: T A Brennan; L L Leape; N M Laird; L Hebert; A R Localio; A G Lawthers; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245