4.6 Article

Skills of Internal Medicine Residents in Disclosing Medical Errors: A Study Using Standardized Patients

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 84, 期 12, 页码 1803-1808

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bf9fef

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine internal medicine (IM) residents' ability to disclose a medical error using standardized patients (SPs) and to survey residents' experiences of disclosure. Method In 2005, 42 second-year IM residents at the University of Toronto participated in the study. Each resident disclosed one medical error (insulin overdose) to an SP. The SP and a physician observer scored performance using a rating scale (1 = not performed, 2 = performed somewhat, and 3 = performed well) that measures error disclosure on five specific component skills and that provides an overall assessment score (scored on a five-point scale, 5 = high). Residents also completed a questionnaire. Results The mean scores on the five components were explanation of medical facts (2.60), honesty (2.31), empathy (2.47), future error prevention (1.99), and general communication skills (2.47). The residents' mean overall disclosure score was 3.53. Although 27 of 42 residents (64%) reported previous experience in disclosing an error to a patient during their training, only 7 (27%) of these residents reported receiving any feedback about their performance. Of 41 residents, 21 (51%) had received some prior training in disclosure, and 38 (93%) thought additional training would be useful and relevant. Conclusions Disclosing medical error is now a standard practice. Experience with medical error begins early in training, and preparing trainees to discuss these errors is essential. Areas exist for improvement in residents' disclosure abilities, particularly regarding the prevention of future errors. Curricula to increase residents' skills and comfort in disclosure need to be implemented. Most residents would welcome further training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据