Intersystem Medical Error Discovery: A Document Analysis of Ethical Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

Patient safety programs aim to improve transparency regarding medical errors, and there is broad consensus on how providers should communicate about their own errors. How providers should respond to other providers' errors is less clear, especially when they occur outside the provider's facility or system (intersystem medical error discovery [IMED]). To understand what guidance is available to healthcare professionals in this scenario, we conducted a document analysis of ethical guidelines.

METHODS

We searched for ethics codes primarily using databases and lists of professional associations. We used thematic analysis to examine documents in relation to our research questions: is there guidance on (a) what a provider should do after discovering another provider's error that occurred in a different health system, (b) interacting with other providers, or (c) other subjects relevant to IMED?

RESULTS

Our search identified 150 documents from 120 organizations. These documents contained ambiguous terminology and guidance limiting practical application to IMED scenarios, with most guidance potentially applicable to IMED rendered irrelevant to most IMED scenarios by its restriction to incompetence. In addition, guidelines often sent conflicting signals about prioritizing honesty with and autonomy of patients versus not criticizing the care provided by a fellow practitioner.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethics codes provide little guidance on communication regarding IMED scenarios, and in some cases, the guidance is internally conflicting. National professional and patient safety organizations should work to provide a framework for providers and facilities to communicate regarding these ethically and professionally challenging scenarios.