Search

OBJECTIVES We aimed to investigate experiences of, and responses to, medical error amongst junior doctors and to examine the challenges junior doctors face and the support they receive. METHODS We carried out a qualitative study of 38 randomly selected pre-registration house officers (PRHOs) in 10 hospitals. All 38 had graduated in 2000 or 2001 from a single medical school. RESULTS Errors were common and sometimes serious. In relation to disclosure and learning from error, four main themes emerged: a norm of selective disclosure; the effects of the team; individualised blame and responsibility, and the 'learning moment'. Trainees reported disclosing errors informally, particularly when teams were seen as supportive, but were reluctant to criticise colleagues. Formal reports and disclosure to patients were very rare. Patient care was compromised when juniors did not access senior help, often when working outside their usual team environment. Lack of cooperation between teams and poor continuity of care also contributed to errors. Learning was maximised when errors were formally discussed and constructive feedback offered. However, both blame and the prioritisation of reassurance over learning and structured feedback appeared to inhibit reflection on the experience of error. CONCLUSIONS Junior doctors need help to reflect on their experiences and to recognise where they may have made mistakes, particularly in the contexts of shift-work and fragmented teams. Formal reporting systems alone will not facilitate learning from error. Juniors require individual clinical supervision from seniors with appropriate training. Such expertise may benefit the whole team and the training environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public reporting of clinical performance is increasingly used in many countries to improve quality and enhance accountability of the health system. The assumption is that greater transparency will stimulate improvements by clinicians in response to peer pressure, patient choice or competition. The international diffusion of public reporting might suggest greater similarity between health systems. Alternatively, national and local contexts (including health system imperatives, professional power and organisational culture) might continue to shape its form and impact, implying continued divergence. The paper considers public reporting in the USA and England through the lens of Scott's 'pillars' institutional framework. The USA was arguably the first country to adopt public reporting systematically in the late 1980s. England is a more recent adopter; it is now being widely adopted through the National Health Service (NHS). Drawing on qualitative data from California and England, this paper compares the behavioural and policy responses to public reporting by health system stakeholders at micro, meso and macro levels and through the intersection of ideas, interests, institutions and individuals through. The interplay between the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars helps explain the observed patterns of on-going divergence.