Transparency in healthcare relates to formally reporting medical errors and disclosing bad outcomes to patients and families. Unfortunately, most physicians are not in the habit of communicating transparently, as many studies have shown the existence of a large medical error information gap. Research also shows that creating a culture of transparency would mutually support patient safety and risk management goals by concomitantly reducing medical errors and alleviating the malpractice crisis. Three predictor variables are used to represent the various dimensions of the context just described. Perfectionism represents the intrapersonal domain, socio-organizational climate represents the interpersonal and institutional domains, and medico-legal environment represents the societal domain. Chin and Benne’s normative re-educative strategy provides theoretical support for the notion that successful organizational change hinges upon addressing the structural and cultural barriers displayed by individuals and groups. The Physician Transparency Questionnaire was completed by 270 physicians who were drawn from a multi-site healthcare organization in Central Florida. Structural equation modeling was used to determine whether perfectionism, socio-organizational climate, and medico-legal environment significantly predict two transparency outcomes, namely, error reporting transparency and provider-patient transparency. Perfectionism and socio-organizational climate were found to be statistically significant predictors. Collectively, these variables accounted for nearly half of the variance in each transparency outcome. Within socio-organizational climate, policies had the greatest influence iv on transparency, followed by immunity and professional norms. Multiple group analysis showed that the covariance model developed in this study generalizes across gender, medical specialty, and occupation. In addition, group means comparisons tests revealed a number of interesting trends in error reporting and disclosure practices that provide insights about the behavioral and cognitive psychology behind transparent communication: 1) Physicians are more inclined to engage in provider-patient transparency compared to error reporting transparency, 2) physicians are more inclined to report serious errors compared to less serious errors, and 3) physicians are more inclined to express sympathy for bad outcomes than they are to apologize for a preventable error or be honest about the details surrounding bad outcomes. These results suggest that change efforts would need to be directed at medical education curricula and health provider organizations to ensure that current and future generations of physicians replace the pursuit for perfectionism with the pursuit for excellence. Also, a number of institutional changes are recommended, such as clearly communicating transparency policies and guidelines, promoting professional norms that encourage learning from mistakes rather than an aversion to error, and reassuring physicians that reporting and disclosure activities will not compromise their reputation. From the perspective of patient safety advocates and risk managers, the results are heartening because they emphasize a key principle in quality improvement - i.e., small changes can yield big results. From an ethical standpoint, this research suggests that healthcare organizations can inhibit (or facilitate) the emergence of professional virtues. Thus, although organizations cannot make a physician become virtuous, it is within their power to create conditions that encourage the physician to practice certain virtues. With respect to leadership styles, this research finds that v bottom-up, grassroots change efforts can elicit professional virtues, and that culture change in healthcare lies beyond the scope of the medico-legal system

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Reducing medical error remains in the forefront of healthcare reform. The use of health information technology, specifically the electronic health record (EHR) is one attempt to improve patient safety. The implementation of the EHR in the Emergency Department changes physician workflow, which can have negative, unintended consequences for patient safety. Inaccuracies in clinical documentation can contribute, for example, to medical error during transitions of care. In this quasi-experimental comparison study, we sought to determine whether there is a difference in document quality, error rate, error type, cognitive load and time when Emergency Medicine (EM) residents use paper charts versus the EHR to complete physician documentation of clinical encounters. Simulated patient encounters provided a unique and innovative environment to evaluate EM physician documentation. Analysis focused on examining documentation quality and real-time observation of the simulated encounter. Results demonstrate no change in document quality, no change in cognitive load, and no change in error rate between electronic and paper charts. There was a 46% increase in the time required to complete the charting task when using the EHR. Physician workflow changes from partial documentation during the patient encounter with paper charts to complete documentation after the encounter with electronic charts. Documentation quality overall was poor with an average of 36% of required elements missing which did not improve during residency training. The extra time required for the charting task using the EHR potentially increases patient waiting times as well as clinician dissatisfaction and burnout, yet it has little impact on the quality of physician documentation. Better strategies and support for documentation are needed as providers adopt and use EHR systems to change the practice of medicine.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This qualitative study was successful in utilization of grounded theory methodology to ascertain nurses’ decision-making processes following their awareness of having made a medical error, as well as how and/or if they corrected and reported the error. Significant literature documents the existence of medical errors; however, this unique study interviewed thirty nurses from adult intensive care units seeking to discover through a detailed interview process their individual stories and experiences, which were then analyzed for common themes. Common themes led to the development of a theoretical model of thought processes regarding error reporting when nurses made an error. Within this theoretical model are multiple processes that outline a shared, time-orientated sequence of events nurses encounter before, during, and after an error. One common theme was the error occurred during a busy day when they had been doing something unfamiliar. Each nurse expressed personal anguish at the realization she had made an error, she sought to understand why the error happened and what corrective action was needed. Whether the error was reported on or told about depended on each unit’s expectation and what needed to be done to protect the patient. If there was no perceived patient harm, errors were not reported. Even for reported errors, no one followed-up with the nurses in this study. Nurses were left on their own to reflect on what had happened and to consider what could be done to prevent error recurrence. The overall impact of the process of and the recovery from the error led to learning from the error that persisted throughout her nursing career. Findings from this study illuminate the unique viewpoint of licensed nurses’ experiences with errors and have the potential to influence how the prevention of, notification about and resolution of errors are dealt with in the clinical setting. Further research is needed to answer multiple questions that will contribute to nursing knowledge about error reporting activities and the means to continue to improve error-reporting rates