Dataset Information

[Learning from Errors: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Reports on Malpractice in Family Medicine].

ABSTRACT:

Background

Expert committees of the German medical associations provide a free and out-of-court evaluation of putative cases of medical malpractice. They prepare reports that contain valuable information on process steps that precede the actual treatment error. The aim of the present study was to identify and systematically categorize individual process steps in the expert reports and thus to lay the foundations for the understanding of malpractice evaluation processes.

Methods

In this study, ten randomly selected and anonymized expert reports of the Expert Committee for Questions of Medical Liability of the District Medical Association of South Württemberg with identified GP treatment errors were evaluated, using the method of qualitative content analysis. In an iterative process, central elements of expert reports were classified into a deductively and inductively built category system.

Results

Six main categories with associated subcategories were identified: 1) structural aspects of the report, 2) doctor-patient communication, 3) medical course, 4) patient's experience, 5) action by the GP team, and 6) coordinative role in the health care system. The category system showed sufficient reliability with repeated use.

Conclusion

This study offers an opportunity to learn from errors. The proposed system allows to structure the complexity of expert reports on GP malpractice and may thus serve as a tool in various contexts. In particular, it facilitates the preparation and comparative analysis of reports in a structured way. It could also be used in health care research as well as in education and training.

SUBMITTER: Forster C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11003247 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

[Learning from Errors: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Reports on Malpractice in Family Medicine].

Förster Christian C Lorenz Gernot G Wilke Marko M Eissler Manfred M Joos Stefanie S Koch Roland R

Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) 20230714 4

<h4>Background</h4>Expert committees of the German medical associations provide a free and out-of-court evaluation of putative cases of medical malpractice. They prepare reports that contain valuable information on process steps that precede the actual treatment error. The aim of the present study was to identify and systematically categorize individual process steps in the expert reports and thus to lay the foundations for the understanding of malpractice evaluation processes.<h4>Methods</h4>In ...[more]

PMID: 37451274

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMore and more patients need complex care, especially the elderly. For various reasons, this is becoming increasingly difficult. The onus is essentially on family physicians to provide this care and family medicine residency programs should therefore prepare their residents for this task. We know from self-determination theory (SDT) that motivation plays a key role in learning and that in order to boost motivation, fulfillment of 3 basic psychological needs - for autonomy, competence, and relatedness - is crucial. As residents often lack motivation, residency programs face the important challenge to motivate them to learn about and engage in complex elderly care. How to do so, however, is not yet sufficiently understood.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative multi-institutional case study across four universities in Belgium and the Netherlands. In the period between June, 2015, and May, 2019, we triangulated information from semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and observations of educational moments. Guided by SDT concepts, the analysis was performed iteratively by a multidisciplinary team, using ATLAS.ti, version 8. In this process, we gained more insights into residents' motivation to learn complex elderly care.ResultsWe scrutinized 1,369 document pages and 4 films, observed 34 educational moments, and held 41 semi-structured interviews. Although we found all the 3 basic psychological needs postulated by SDT, each seemed to have its own challenges. First, a tension between the need to guide residents and to encourage their independent learning complicated fulfillment of the need for autonomy. Second, the unpredictability of complex care led to reduced feelings of competence. Yet, guidelines and models could help residents to capture and apprehend its complexity. And third, family medicine practice, patients, and educational practice, by either satisfying or thwarting the need for relatedness, were identified as key mediators of motivation. By setting the right example and encouraging residents to discuss authentic dilemmas and switch their health care approach from cure to care, educators can boost their motivation.ConclusionOur study has demonstrated that the degree of perceived autonomy, guidance by the education program, use of authentic dilemmas, as well as involvement of group facilitators can aid the process of motivation.Trial registrationNVMO, ERB number 482.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies in improving litigation-related outcomes in obstetrics.MethodsWe conducted a rapid scoping review with a 6-week timeline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline were searched for publications in English from 2004 until June 2015. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot-tested. We included reports comparing or evaluating the impact of obstetrics-related medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies on cost containment and litigation settlement across all countries. All levels of screening were done by two reviewers independently, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. In addition, two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The results were summarized descriptively.ResultsThe search resulted in 2729 citations, of which 14 reports met our eligibility criteria. Several initiatives for improving the medical malpractice litigation system were found, including no-fault approaches, patient safety policy initiatives, communication and resolution, caps on compensation and attorney fees, alternative payment system and liabilities, and limitations on litigation.ConclusionsOnly a few litigation policies in obstetrics were evaluated or compared. Included documents showed that initiatives to reduce medical malpractice litigation could be associated with a decrease in adverse and malpractice events. However, due to heterogeneous settings (e.g., economic structure, healthcare system) and variation in the outcomes reported, the advantages and disadvantages of initiatives may vary.

Project description:BackgroundThird-party cloud-based data analysis applications are proliferating in electronic health (eHealth) because of the expertise offered and their monetary advantage. However, privacy and security are critical concerns when handling sensitive medical data in the cloud. Technical advances based on "crypto magic" in privacy-preserving machine learning (ML) enable data analysis in encrypted form for maintaining confidentiality. Such privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) could be counterintuitive to relevant stakeholders in eHealth, which could in turn hinder adoption; thus, more attention is needed on human factors for establishing trust and transparency.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze eHealth expert stakeholders' perspectives and the perceived tradeoffs in regard to data analysis on encrypted medical data in the cloud, and to derive user requirements for development of a privacy-preserving data analysis tool.MethodsWe used semistructured interviews and report on 14 interviews with individuals having medical, technical, or research expertise in eHealth. We used thematic analysis for analyzing interview data. In addition, we conducted a workshop for eliciting requirements.ResultsOur results show differences in the understanding of and in trusting the technology; caution is advised by technical experts, whereas patient safety assurances are required by medical experts. Themes were identified with general perspectives on data privacy and practices (eg, acceptance of using external services), as well as themes highlighting specific perspectives (eg, data protection drawbacks and concerns of the data analysis on encrypted data). The latter themes result in requiring assurances and conformance testing for trusting tools such as the proposed ML-based tool. Communicating privacy, and utility benefits and tradeoffs with stakeholders is essential for trust. Furthermore, stakeholders and their organizations share accountability of patient data. Finally, stakeholders stressed the importance of informing patients about the privacy of their data.ConclusionsUnderstanding the benefits and risks of using eHealth PETs is crucial, and collaboration among diverse stakeholders is essential. Assurances of the tool's privacy, accuracy, and patient safety should be in place for establishing trust of ML-based PETs, especially if used in the cloud.

Dataset Information

[Learning from Errors: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Reports on Malpractice in Family Medicine].

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

[Learning from Errors: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Reports on Malpractice in Family Medicine].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets