Intersystem Medical Error Discovery in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Importance

Intersystem medical error discovery (IMED) involves clinicians identifying errors that occurred outside of their facility while a patient was under another clinician's care. Despite its major implications for safety and quality of care, explicit guidance is limited. Given the complexity of disorders and specialization within otolaryngology, IMED is a considerable concern, yet little is known about current practices or management strategies.

Objective

To explore otolaryngologists' perceptions and practices around feedback and reporting of IMED and to identify strategies for preventing or responding to these errors.

Design, setting, and participants

This qualitative study used semistructured, virtual interviews of 24 otolaryngologists with expertise in patient safety and quality improvement across the US from July to October of 2023. Purposive sampling ensured diversity in subspecialty, career stage, geography, practice context, and demographics.

Main outcomes and measures

Otolaryngologist perceptions of IMED, encompassing barriers and facilitators to providing feedback or reporting IMED, and strategies for improving practices. Analysis followed an iterative inductive approach of interpretive description.

Results

Among the 24 participants (median [IQR] age, 51 [43-59] years; 13 [54%] female), several barriers, facilitators, and strategies emerged. Barriers included logistical (eg, lack of proximity, unavailable contact information, time constraints), psychosocial (eg, interpersonal discomfort, fear of retaliation, burnout), and structural factors (eg, fragmented systems, lack of incentives, leadership modeling, perceived conflict of interest). Facilitators that were associated with increased feedback or reporting included severe, egregious, fraudulent, or repetitive errors and preexisting relationships with the involved clinician. Most participants believed that IMED was inadequately addressed, with proposed strategies encompassing feedback training, standardized guidelines, interoperable medical records, oversight by national or state bodies, and intersystem safety reporting mechanisms.

Conclusions and relevance

This qualitative study shows that the absence of standardized processes and resources hampers effective responses to IMED, such as feedback and reporting. While egregious errors or preexisting relationships may trigger action, opportunities exist to enhance clinical practice and policies across health systems.

CommentIn

doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2025.0596

References:

• Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press; 1999.
• Boothman RC, Imhoff SJ, Campbell DA Jr. Nurturing a culture of patient safety and achieving lower malpractice risk through disclosure: lessons learned and future directions. Front Health Serv Manage. 2012;28(3):13-28. doi:10.1097/01974520-201201000-00003
• Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) Toolkit. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Accessed September 1, 2024. https://www.ahrq.gov/patient-safety/settings/hospital/candor/modules.html
• Duffy B, Miller J, Vitous CA, Dossett LA. Intersystem medical error discovery: a document analysis of ethical guidelines. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e1765-e1773. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000625
• Miller J, Vitous CA, Boothman RC, Dossett LA. Medical error professionals’ perspectives on Inter-system Medical Error Discovery (IMED): consensus, divergence, and uncertainty. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(31):e21425. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000021425