Cargando…
Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study
BACKGROUND: Medical errors are reported as a malpractice claim, and it is of uttermost importance to learn from the errors to enhance patient safety. The Swedish national telephone helpline SHD is staffed by registered nurses; its aim is to provide qualified healthcare advice for all residents of Sw...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33446213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00540-3 |
_version_ | 1783636734348623872 |
---|---|
author | Björkman, Annica Engström, Maria Winblad, Ulrika Holmström, Inger K. |
author_facet | Björkman, Annica Engström, Maria Winblad, Ulrika Holmström, Inger K. |
author_sort | Björkman, Annica |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Medical errors are reported as a malpractice claim, and it is of uttermost importance to learn from the errors to enhance patient safety. The Swedish national telephone helpline SHD is staffed by registered nurses; its aim is to provide qualified healthcare advice for all residents of Sweden; it handles normally about 5 million calls annually. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic have increased call volume with approximate 30%. The aim of the present study was twofold: to describe all malpractice claims and healthcare providers’ reported measures regarding calls to Swedish Healthcare Direct (SHD) during the period January 2011–December 2018 and to compare these findings with results from a previous study covering the period January 2003–December 2010. METHODS: The study used a descriptive, retrospective and comparative design. A total sample of all reported malpractice claims regarding calls to SHD (n = 35) made during the period 2011–2018 was retrieved. Data were analysed and compared with all reported medical errors during the period 2003–2010 (n = 33). RESULTS: Telephone nurses’ failure to follow the computerized decision support system (CDSS) (n = 18) was identified as the main reason for error during the period 2011–2018, while failure to listen to the caller (n = 12) was the main reason during the period 2003–2010. Staff education (n = 21) and listening to one’s own calls (n = 16) were the most common measures taken within the organization during the period 2011–2018, compared to discussion in work groups (n = 13) during the period 2003–2010. CONCLUSION: The proportion of malpractice claims in relation to all patient contacts to SHD is still very low; it seems that only the most severe patient injuries are reported. The fact that telephone nurses’ failure to follow the CDSS is the most common reason for error is notable, as SHD and healthcare organizations stress the importance of using the CDSS to enhance patient safety. The healthcare organizations seem to have adopted a more systematic approach to handling malpractice claims regarding calls, e.g., allowing telephone nurses to listen to their own calls instead of having discussions in work groups in response to events. This enables nurses to understand the latent factors contributing to error and provides a learning opportunity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7807404 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78074042021-01-14 Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study Björkman, Annica Engström, Maria Winblad, Ulrika Holmström, Inger K. BMC Nurs Research Article BACKGROUND: Medical errors are reported as a malpractice claim, and it is of uttermost importance to learn from the errors to enhance patient safety. The Swedish national telephone helpline SHD is staffed by registered nurses; its aim is to provide qualified healthcare advice for all residents of Sweden; it handles normally about 5 million calls annually. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic have increased call volume with approximate 30%. The aim of the present study was twofold: to describe all malpractice claims and healthcare providers’ reported measures regarding calls to Swedish Healthcare Direct (SHD) during the period January 2011–December 2018 and to compare these findings with results from a previous study covering the period January 2003–December 2010. METHODS: The study used a descriptive, retrospective and comparative design. A total sample of all reported malpractice claims regarding calls to SHD (n = 35) made during the period 2011–2018 was retrieved. Data were analysed and compared with all reported medical errors during the period 2003–2010 (n = 33). RESULTS: Telephone nurses’ failure to follow the computerized decision support system (CDSS) (n = 18) was identified as the main reason for error during the period 2011–2018, while failure to listen to the caller (n = 12) was the main reason during the period 2003–2010. Staff education (n = 21) and listening to one’s own calls (n = 16) were the most common measures taken within the organization during the period 2011–2018, compared to discussion in work groups (n = 13) during the period 2003–2010. CONCLUSION: The proportion of malpractice claims in relation to all patient contacts to SHD is still very low; it seems that only the most severe patient injuries are reported. The fact that telephone nurses’ failure to follow the CDSS is the most common reason for error is notable, as SHD and healthcare organizations stress the importance of using the CDSS to enhance patient safety. The healthcare organizations seem to have adopted a more systematic approach to handling malpractice claims regarding calls, e.g., allowing telephone nurses to listen to their own calls instead of having discussions in work groups in response to events. This enables nurses to understand the latent factors contributing to error and provides a learning opportunity. BioMed Central 2021-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7807404/ /pubmed/33446213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00540-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Björkman, Annica Engström, Maria Winblad, Ulrika Holmström, Inger K. Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
title | Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
title_full | Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
title_fullStr | Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
title_full_unstemmed | Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
title_short | Malpractice claimed calls within the Swedish Healthcare Direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
title_sort | malpractice claimed calls within the swedish healthcare direct: a descriptive – comparative case study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33446213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00540-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bjorkmanannica malpracticeclaimedcallswithintheswedishhealthcaredirectadescriptivecomparativecasestudy AT engstrommaria malpracticeclaimedcallswithintheswedishhealthcaredirectadescriptivecomparativecasestudy AT winbladulrika malpracticeclaimedcallswithintheswedishhealthcaredirectadescriptivecomparativecasestudy AT holmstromingerk malpracticeclaimedcallswithintheswedishhealthcaredirectadescriptivecomparativecasestudy |