Error Disclosure Training and Organizational Culture

Objective. Our primary objective was to determine whether, after training was offered to participants, those who indicated they had received error disclosure training previously were more likely to disclose a hypothetical error and have more positive perceptions of their organizational culture pertaining to error disclosure, safety, and teamwork. Methods. Across a 3-year span, all clinical faculty from six health institutions (four medical schools, one cancer center, and one health science center) in The University of Texas System were offered the opportunity to anonymously complete an electronic survey focused on measuring error disclosure culture, safety culture, teamwork culture, and intention to disclose a hypothetical error at two time points—both before (baseline) and after (follow-up) disclosure training was conducted for a subset of faculty. Results. There were significant improvements (all p-values \u3c .05) in the follow-up surveys compared with the baseline surveys for the following domains (percent refers to percent positives before and after, respectively): minor error disclosure culture (33 percent vs. 52 percent), serious error disclosure (53 percent vs. 70 percent), safety culture (50 percent vs. 63 percent), and teamwork culture (62 percent vs. 73 percent). Follow-up survey data revealed significant differences (all p-values \u3c .001) between faculty who had previously received any error disclosure training (n = 472) and those who had not (n = 599). Specifically, we found significant differences in culture (all p-values \u3c .001) between those who received any error disclosure training and those who did not for all culture domains: minor error disclosure (61 percent vs. 41 percent), serious error disclosure (79 percent vs. 58 percent), trust-based error disclosure (61 percent vs. 51 percent), safety (73 percent vs. 51 percent), and teamwork (78 percent vs. 66 percent). Significant differences also existed for intent to disclose an error (t = 4.1, p \u3c .05). We also found that error disclosure culture was significantly associated with intent to disclose for those who received previous error disclosure training, whereas all types of culture we measured were significantly associated with intent to disclose for those who did not receive error disclosure training. Conclusions. Error disclosure, teamwork, and safety culture all improved over a 3-year period during which disclosure training was provided to key faculty in these six institutions. Self‑reported likelihood to disclose errors also improved. The precise impact of the training on these improvements cannot be determined from this study; nevertheless, we present an approach to measuring error disclosure culture and providing training that may be useful to other institutions

Research gaps in diet and nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease. A topical review by D-ECCO Working Group (Dietitians of ECCO)

Although the current doctrine of IBD pathogenesis proposes an interaction between environmental factors with gut microbiota in genetically-susceptible individuals, dietary exposures have attracted recent interest and are, at least in part, likely to explain the rapid rise in disease incidence and prevalence. The D-ECCO working group along with other ECCO experts with expertise in nutrition, microbiology, physiology and medicine reviewed the evidence investigating the role of diet and nutritional therapy in the onset, perpetuation and management of IBD. A narrative topical review is presented where evidence pertinent to the topic is summarized collectively under three main thematic domains: i) the role of diet as an environmental factor in IBD aetiology; ii) the role of diet as induction and maintenance therapy in IBD; and iii) assessment of nutritional status and supportive nutritional therapy in IBD. A summary of research gaps for each of these thematic domains is proposed which is anticipated to be agenda setting for future research in the area of diet and nutrition in IBD

Partnering with Patients and Families to Improve Diagnostic Safety through the OurDX Tool: Effects of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Preference

BACKGROUND: Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note. RESULTS: Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or other race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference. CONCLUSION: Participants self-identifying as Black or other race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities

Erosion of Digital Professionalism During Medical Students’ Core Clinical Clerkships

Background: The increased use of social media, cloud computing, and mobile devices has led to the emergence of guidelines and novel teaching efforts to guide students toward the appropriate use of technology. Despite this, violations of professional conduct are common. Objective: We sought to explore professional behaviors specific to appropriate use of technology by looking at changes in third-year medical students’ attitudes and behaviors at the beginning and conclusion of their clinical clerkships. Methods: After formal teaching about digital professionalism, we administered a survey to medical students that described 35 technology-related behaviors and queried students about professionalism of the behavior (on a 5-point Likert scale), observation of others engaging in the behavior (yes or no), as well as personal participation in the behavior (yes or no). Students were resurveyed at the end of the academic year. Results: Over the year, perceptions of what is considered acceptable behavior regarding privacy, data security, communications, and social media boundaries changed, despite formal teaching sessions to reinforce professional behavior. Furthermore, medical students who observed unprofessional behaviors were more likely to participate in such behaviors. Conclusions: Although technology is a useful tool to enhance teaching and learning, our results reflect an erosion of professionalism related to information security that occurred despite medical school and hospital-based teaching sessions to promote digital professionalism. True alteration of trainee behavior will require a cultural shift that includes continual education, better role models, and frequent reminders for faculty, house staff, students, and staff

Partnering With Patients and Families Living With Chronic Conditions to Coproduce Diagnostic Safety Through OurDX: A Previsit Online Engagement Tool

OBJECTIVE: Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ( OurDX ) that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note. METHODS: Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings. RESULTS: Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories. CONCLUSIONS: OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note

Developing the Improving Post-event Analysis and Communication Together (IMPACT) Tool to Involve Patients and Families in Post-Event Analysis

The analysis of harmful errors is typically led by a team within the hospital and includes clinicians and staff who were involved at the time of the event. However, the patient and family are often left out of this process and are not asked to participate in the investigation. Because little guidance is available for facilitating patient input, an interprofessional team convened to develop a semi-structured tool to be used in eliciting patient feedback. Some 72 persons who had experienced adverse events were interviewed. Using a thematic analysis approach, the team learned that 51% of the interviewees preferred to participate in event analysis directly through an interview and 47% recommended that patients and families should be offered the opportunity to provide their views immediately (within 24-48 hours of the event). The resulting tool, IMPACT, incorporates a conversational flow of questions that allows patients to tell their story, focus their attention on specific causative factors, and give recommendations to improve healthcare in their institutions or to prevent further harm

Deception and Self-Deception

Why are people so often overconfident? We conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis that people become overconfident to more effectively persuade or deceive others. After performing a cognitively challenging task, half of our subjects are informed that they can earn money by convincing others of their superior performance. The privately elicited beliefs of informed subjects are significantly more confident than the beliefs of subjects in the control condition. By generating exogenous variation in confidence with a noisy performance signal, we are also able to show that higher confidence indeed makes subjects more persuasive in the subsequent face-to-face interactions

Error Disclosure Training and Organizational Culture

Objective. Our primary objective was to determine whether, after training was offered to participants, those who indicated they had received error disclosure training previously were more likely to disclose a hypothetical error and have more positive perceptions of their organizational culture pertaining to error disclosure, safety, and teamwork. Methods. Across a 3-year span, all clinical faculty from six health institutions (four medical schools, one cancer center, and one health science center) in The University of Texas System were offered the opportunity to anonymously complete an electronic survey focused on measuring error disclosure culture, safety culture, teamwork culture, and intention to disclose a hypothetical error at two time points—both before (baseline) and after (follow-up) disclosure training was conducted for a subset of faculty. Results. There were significant improvements (all p-values \u3c .05) in the follow-up surveys compared with the baseline surveys for the following domains (percent refers to percent positives before and after, respectively): minor error disclosure culture (33 percent vs. 52 percent), serious error disclosure (53 percent vs. 70 percent), safety culture (50 percent vs. 63 percent), and teamwork culture (62 percent vs. 73 percent). Follow-up survey data revealed significant differences (all p-values \u3c .001) between faculty who had previously received any error disclosure training (n = 472) and those who had not (n = 599). Specifically, we found significant differences in culture (all p-values \u3c .001) between those who received any error disclosure training and those who did not for all culture domains: minor error disclosure (61 percent vs. 41 percent), serious error disclosure (79 percent vs. 58 percent), trust-based error disclosure (61 percent vs. 51 percent), safety (73 percent vs. 51 percent), and teamwork (78 percent vs. 66 percent). Significant differences also existed for intent to disclose an error (t = 4.1, p \u3c .05). We also found that error disclosure culture was significantly associated with intent to disclose for those who received previous error disclosure training, whereas all types of culture we measured were significantly associated with intent to disclose for those who did not receive error disclosure training. Conclusions. Error disclosure, teamwork, and safety culture all improved over a 3-year period during which disclosure training was provided to key faculty in these six institutions. Self‑reported likelihood to disclose errors also improved. The precise impact of the training on these improvements cannot be determined from this study; nevertheless, we present an approach to measuring error disclosure culture and providing training that may be useful to other institutions