Loading…

Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication

Context Many articles, book chapters and presentations begin with a declaration that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication. However, this statement may not be supported by the research reported in the literature. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review is to identif...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical education 2020-01, Vol.54 (1), p.74-81
Main Authors: Clapper, Timothy C, Ching, Kevin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3
container_end_page 81
container_issue 1
container_start_page 74
container_title Medical education
container_volume 54
creator Clapper, Timothy C
Ching, Kevin
description Context Many articles, book chapters and presentations begin with a declaration that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication. However, this statement may not be supported by the research reported in the literature. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review is to identify where errors are reported in the research literature. Methods A systematised review was conducted of research articles over the last 20 years (1998‐2018) indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) using term combinations: medical errors, research and communication. Inclusion was based on reported generalised primary research of medical error and the reported causes. Results This systematised review resulted in 2881 research articles, which produced 42 that met the inclusion criteria. Although there was some overlap, three categories of errors were dominant in this research: errors of commission (20 articles; 47.6%), errors of omission (six articles; 14.2%) and errors through communication (four articles; 9.5%). There were 12 (28.5%) articles in which all three categories together significantly contributed to error. Of these 12 articles, errors of commission or omission were dominant in nine articles (21.4%) and errors of communication were prevalent in only three articles (7%). Conclusions The assertion that the majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication is not supported by this systematic review. Overwhelmingly, most reported errors are attributed to errors of omission or commission. Intentionally or unintentionally providing misinformation may mislead patient safety initiatives, and research and funding agency priorities. The majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication … or not? Existing research suggests the contrary, that most reported errors may be better attributed to errors of omission and/or commission.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/medu.13821
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2288713189</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2288713189</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PxCAQhonR6Ppx8QcYEi_GpMoAbenR-J1ovLheCW2n2rUtCjRm_72sVQ8e5DIweXgHHkL2gZ1AXKc91uMJCMVhjcxAZGnCCy7WyYwJphIGwLbItvcLxlieSrVJtgSkrOB5PiNPF1iOw2s7PNPwgrRfhpe4MWE6mYV1bVhS29A4pK1MR9E56zw1DqkJwbXlGLCmwdLK9v04RCa0dtglG43pPO591x0yv7p8PL9J7h6ub8_P7pJKFAKSlDe8wCrFzMSPMIWyzrO6kRlHk8uUC5krJgznStRY15CVshASFHAsAUwtdsjRlPvm7PuIPui-9RV2nRnQjl7HmyoHAaqI6OEfdGFHN8TXaS6iC5ZLLiN1PFGVs947bPSba3vjlhqYXtnWK9v6y3aED74jxzK2f9EfvRGACfhoO1z-E6XvLy_mU-gnWrSI-Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2327707424</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Clapper, Timothy C ; Ching, Kevin</creator><creatorcontrib>Clapper, Timothy C ; Ching, Kevin</creatorcontrib><description>Context Many articles, book chapters and presentations begin with a declaration that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication. However, this statement may not be supported by the research reported in the literature. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review is to identify where errors are reported in the research literature. Methods A systematised review was conducted of research articles over the last 20 years (1998‐2018) indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) using term combinations: medical errors, research and communication. Inclusion was based on reported generalised primary research of medical error and the reported causes. Results This systematised review resulted in 2881 research articles, which produced 42 that met the inclusion criteria. Although there was some overlap, three categories of errors were dominant in this research: errors of commission (20 articles; 47.6%), errors of omission (six articles; 14.2%) and errors through communication (four articles; 9.5%). There were 12 (28.5%) articles in which all three categories together significantly contributed to error. Of these 12 articles, errors of commission or omission were dominant in nine articles (21.4%) and errors of communication were prevalent in only three articles (7%). Conclusions The assertion that the majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication is not supported by this systematic review. Overwhelmingly, most reported errors are attributed to errors of omission or commission. Intentionally or unintentionally providing misinformation may mislead patient safety initiatives, and research and funding agency priorities. The majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication … or not? Existing research suggests the contrary, that most reported errors may be better attributed to errors of omission and/or commission.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0308-0110</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2923</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/medu.13821</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31509277</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Communication ; Medical education ; Medical errors ; Patient safety ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Medical education, 2020-01, Vol.54 (1), p.74-81</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education</rights><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1988-6505</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31509277$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clapper, Timothy C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ching, Kevin</creatorcontrib><title>Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication</title><title>Medical education</title><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><description>Context Many articles, book chapters and presentations begin with a declaration that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication. However, this statement may not be supported by the research reported in the literature. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review is to identify where errors are reported in the research literature. Methods A systematised review was conducted of research articles over the last 20 years (1998‐2018) indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) using term combinations: medical errors, research and communication. Inclusion was based on reported generalised primary research of medical error and the reported causes. Results This systematised review resulted in 2881 research articles, which produced 42 that met the inclusion criteria. Although there was some overlap, three categories of errors were dominant in this research: errors of commission (20 articles; 47.6%), errors of omission (six articles; 14.2%) and errors through communication (four articles; 9.5%). There were 12 (28.5%) articles in which all three categories together significantly contributed to error. Of these 12 articles, errors of commission or omission were dominant in nine articles (21.4%) and errors of communication were prevalent in only three articles (7%). Conclusions The assertion that the majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication is not supported by this systematic review. Overwhelmingly, most reported errors are attributed to errors of omission or commission. Intentionally or unintentionally providing misinformation may mislead patient safety initiatives, and research and funding agency priorities. The majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication … or not? Existing research suggests the contrary, that most reported errors may be better attributed to errors of omission and/or commission.</description><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Medical education</subject><subject>Medical errors</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0308-0110</issn><issn>1365-2923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1PxCAQhonR6Ppx8QcYEi_GpMoAbenR-J1ovLheCW2n2rUtCjRm_72sVQ8e5DIweXgHHkL2gZ1AXKc91uMJCMVhjcxAZGnCCy7WyYwJphIGwLbItvcLxlieSrVJtgSkrOB5PiNPF1iOw2s7PNPwgrRfhpe4MWE6mYV1bVhS29A4pK1MR9E56zw1DqkJwbXlGLCmwdLK9v04RCa0dtglG43pPO591x0yv7p8PL9J7h6ub8_P7pJKFAKSlDe8wCrFzMSPMIWyzrO6kRlHk8uUC5krJgznStRY15CVshASFHAsAUwtdsjRlPvm7PuIPui-9RV2nRnQjl7HmyoHAaqI6OEfdGFHN8TXaS6iC5ZLLiN1PFGVs947bPSba3vjlhqYXtnWK9v6y3aED74jxzK2f9EfvRGACfhoO1z-E6XvLy_mU-gnWrSI-Q</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Clapper, Timothy C</creator><creator>Ching, Kevin</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1988-6505</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication</title><author>Clapper, Timothy C ; Ching, Kevin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Medical education</topic><topic>Medical errors</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clapper, Timothy C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ching, Kevin</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clapper, Timothy C</au><au>Ching, Kevin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication</atitle><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>74</spage><epage>81</epage><pages>74-81</pages><issn>0308-0110</issn><eissn>1365-2923</eissn><abstract>Context Many articles, book chapters and presentations begin with a declaration that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication. However, this statement may not be supported by the research reported in the literature. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review is to identify where errors are reported in the research literature. Methods A systematised review was conducted of research articles over the last 20 years (1998‐2018) indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) using term combinations: medical errors, research and communication. Inclusion was based on reported generalised primary research of medical error and the reported causes. Results This systematised review resulted in 2881 research articles, which produced 42 that met the inclusion criteria. Although there was some overlap, three categories of errors were dominant in this research: errors of commission (20 articles; 47.6%), errors of omission (six articles; 14.2%) and errors through communication (four articles; 9.5%). There were 12 (28.5%) articles in which all three categories together significantly contributed to error. Of these 12 articles, errors of commission or omission were dominant in nine articles (21.4%) and errors of communication were prevalent in only three articles (7%). Conclusions The assertion that the majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication is not supported by this systematic review. Overwhelmingly, most reported errors are attributed to errors of omission or commission. Intentionally or unintentionally providing misinformation may mislead patient safety initiatives, and research and funding agency priorities. The majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication … or not? Existing research suggests the contrary, that most reported errors may be better attributed to errors of omission and/or commission.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>31509277</pmid><doi>10.1111/medu.13821</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1988-6505</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0308-0110
ispartof Medical education, 2020-01, Vol.54 (1), p.74-81
issn 0308-0110
1365-2923
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2288713189
source Wiley
subjects Communication
Medical education
Medical errors
Patient safety
Systematic review
title Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T12%3A43%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Debunking%20the%20myth%20that%20the%20majority%20of%20medical%20errors%20are%20attributed%20to%20communication&rft.jtitle=Medical%20education&rft.au=Clapper,%20Timothy%20C&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=74&rft.epage=81&rft.pages=74-81&rft.issn=0308-0110&rft.eissn=1365-2923&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/medu.13821&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2288713189%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3931-52f29ec5e6a11108e4d76df462ea7452347803a2283dedd16b49341812eb11ad3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2327707424&rft_id=info:pmid/31509277&rfr_iscdi=true