• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Adverse Event Aftermath: Departments are creating programs to help physicians cope

by Gina Shaw • July 2, 2010

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

When Rahul Shah, MD, then a pediatric otolaryngologist at Children’s Hospital in Boston, and several colleagues first undertook a survey of otolaryngologists’ reactions to adverse events in 2004, they provided a blank form for respondents to write about what had happened. In the more than 200 responses they received, Dr. Shah and his colleagues read an outpouring of emotion.

You Might Also Like

  • Adverse Events in the Medical Office Setting
  • Hospital-Based Safety Programs: Making Them Work
  • AHRQ Tool Fosters Physician-Patient Communication After Adverse Events
  • U.K. Surgeons Report Being Negatively Affected by Adverse Events
Explore This Issue
July 2010

“It was cathartic for everyone who responded, like they had wanted to tell someone before but couldn’t,” said Dr. Shah, now on the pediatric otolaryngology faculty at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. “They’d write things like, ‘This has been bugging me for years.’ They wanted to discuss the aftermath of adverse events in a peer fashion with colleagues but felt uncomfortable talking about these things with someone who knew them. We were nobody to them, so they could tell us.”

For years, adverse events in medicine resulted in a response similar to the one applied to gays in the military: “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” “The old attitude was that you couldn’t tell the patient anything, or they’d sue you,” said Brian Nussenbaum, MD, professor of otolaryngology and patient safety officer for the otolaryngology department at Washington University in St. Louis. “It placed an element of distrust between physicians and the public.”

And it’s not just the patient who suffers after an adverse event. Clinicians who have experienced a serious patient safety incident face their own demons. “It’s very common for clinicians to experience emotional distress following significant adverse events and errors. That distress has significant consequences, ranging from losing sleep and lack of confidence in your own clinical skills to difficulty focusing on meeting the needs of your patients,” said Tom Gallagher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle and a nationally known expert on medical errors and disclosure.

In recent years, led by vanguard institutions like the University of Michigan and the University of Illinois at Chicago, this attitude has begun to change. Research has shown that patients and families who experience an adverse event are, in fact, much less likely to sue a doctor or a hospital that admits fault in an incident and expresses a sincere apology. At the University of Michigan, for example, the medical error disclosure program brought litigation costs down to $1 million from $3 million between 2001 and 2005, and annual claims and lawsuits were reduced by more than half, from 261 to 114, according to a report in the Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law (2010;2(2):125-1569). And as Timothy McDonald, chief safety officer at the University of Illinois, told the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 25, when the university introduced a similar program in 2004, lawsuits dropped by 40 percent over the next five years, even as the number of procedures went up.

“Physicians tend to feel that they should handle things themselves, so we don’t wait for them to call us—because they won’t. We call them.”
—Jo Shapiro, MD

Washington University’s primary hospital, Barnes-Jewish, is now in the process of establishing a disclosure coaching program that will be accessible through a hotline number.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Career Development, Departments, Practice Management Tagged With: academic otolaryngology, career development, legal, malpractice, outcomes, patient safety, physician safety, resourcesIssue: July 2010

You Might Also Like:

  • Adverse Events in the Medical Office Setting
  • Hospital-Based Safety Programs: Making Them Work
  • AHRQ Tool Fosters Physician-Patient Communication After Adverse Events
  • U.K. Surgeons Report Being Negatively Affected by Adverse Events

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Have you invented or patented something that betters the field of otolaryngology?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • The Best Site for Pediatric TT Placement: OR or Office?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • The Road Less Traveled—at Least by Otolaryngologists

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Leaky Pipes—Time to Focus on Our Foundations
    • You Are Among Friends: The Value Of Being In A Group
    • How To: Full Endoscopic Procedures of Total Parotidectomy
    • How To: Does Intralesional Steroid Injection Effectively Mitigate Vocal Fold Scarring in a Rabbit Model?
    • What Is the Optimal Anticoagulation in HGNS Surgery in Patients with High-Risk Cardiac Comorbidities?

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939