Ock Minsu, Kim Hyun Joo, Jo Min-Woo, Lee Sang-Il
Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Nursing Science, Shinsung University, Dangjin, South Korea.
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Aug 20;17(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0134-0.
Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea.
We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with 16 physicians and 18 members of the general public. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were performed according to semi-structured guidelines developed according to a systematic review of open disclosure. We conducted a directed content analysis by analyzing the verbatim transcripts and field notes in accordance with the predetermined guidelines.
Open disclosure perceptions were summarized in terms of the "five Ws and one H" (who, what, where, when, why, and how). All physician and general public participants acknowledged the normative justifiability of open disclosure. The participants mostly agreed on the known effects of open disclosure, but the physicians had negative opinions on its expected effects, such as decreased intention of the general public to file lawsuits and increased credibility of medical professionals. Generally, the participants thought that open disclosure is required for medical errors causing major harm. However, the physicians and general public had conflicting opinions on the need for open disclosure of near misses. Most physicians did not know how to conduct open disclosure and some physicians had bad experiences due to inappropriate or incomplete open disclosure.
Physicians and the general public in Korea acknowledge the need for open disclosure. Guidelines according to the type of patient safety incident are required to encourage physicians to more readily conduct open disclosure. Furthermore, hospitals need to consider organizing a dedicated team and hiring experts for open disclosure.
公开披露及其研究经验仅限于某些西方国家。此外,有人担心公开披露在非西方国家可能不太适用。本研究探讨并比较了韩国公众和医生对公开披露的深入看法。
我们将COREQ(定性研究报告统一标准)清单应用于这项定性研究。我们对16名医生和18名公众进行了20次深入访谈和4次焦点小组讨论。根据对公开披露的系统评价制定的半结构化指南进行深入访谈和焦点小组讨论。我们根据预先确定的指南分析逐字记录和现场笔记,进行定向内容分析。
公开披露的看法按照“五个W和一个H”(谁、什么、哪里、何时、为什么以及如何)进行了总结。所有医生和公众参与者都承认公开披露在规范上的合理性。参与者大多认同公开披露的已知效果,但医生对其预期效果持负面看法,如公众提起诉讼的意愿降低以及医疗专业人员的可信度提高。总体而言,参与者认为对于造成重大伤害的医疗差错需要进行公开披露。然而,医生和公众对于险些发生的失误是否需要公开披露存在分歧。大多数医生不知道如何进行公开披露,一些医生因公开披露不当或不完整而有过不好的经历。
韩国的医生和公众承认需要进行公开披露。需要根据患者安全事件的类型制定指南,以鼓励医生更积极地进行公开披露。此外,医院需要考虑组建专门团队并聘请公开披露方面的专家。