Kodama Y
Department of Patient Safety & Risk Management, Tokyo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kyobu Geka. 2009 Feb;62(2):145-8.
It is hard to narrowly define institutional investigations on clinical adverse events because of their variety: including which kinds of professional participate in drafting a report, whether a report focuses on measures to improve quality and safety in healthcare, the manner in which a committee communicates with patients and their families, whether there is licensing, civil or criminal procedures involved, and the manner in which a committee discloses its report and related facts to the media Institutional investigations and reports have several headwaters to overcome. Clinicopathological conferences provide useful methods to investigate adverse events, although they are not well structured to communicate with patients and families. Medical malpractice lawsuits also have given medical professionals a certain distorted style in their ability to openly discuss adverse events. The Japanese Society of Internal Medicine, cooperating with other medical societies, has managed for 4 years a project for the investigation of deaths associated with medical practice. That project has been providing both better methods of investigation and of communication with patients.
由于临床不良事件调查的多样性,很难对其进行狭义定义:包括哪些专业人员参与报告起草、报告是否侧重于改善医疗质量和安全的措施、委员会与患者及其家属沟通的方式、是否涉及许可、民事或刑事程序,以及委员会向媒体披露其报告及相关事实的方式。机构调查和报告有几个需要克服的源头。临床病理讨论会提供了调查不良事件的有用方法,尽管它们在与患者及家属沟通方面结构不完善。医疗事故诉讼也使医疗专业人员在公开讨论不良事件的能力上呈现出某种扭曲的方式。日本内科医学会与其他医学学会合作,对与医疗行为相关的死亡调查项目进行了4年的管理。该项目一直在提供更好的调查方法以及与患者沟通的方法。