Korean physicians’ perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study

doi:10.21203/rs.2.18266/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Korean physicians’ perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.18266/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 08 Oct, 2020

Read the published version in PLOS ONE →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Physicians are in the most critical position vis-à-vis disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI), and improper perceptions of DPSI among them could be a major barrier to proper execution of DPSI in clinical practice. The present study investigated physicians’ perceptions regarding the need for, effects of, and barriers to DPSI.

Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate physicians’ perception regarding DPSI, in particular of when DPSI was needed in various situations and of methods for facilitating DPSI. Physicians’ perceptions were then compared to the general public’s perceptions regarding DPSI identified in a previous study, and a chi-squared test was performed to check for statistically significant differences.

Results: A total of 910 physicians participated. Most participants (94.9%) agreed that any serious medical error should be disclosed to patients and their caregivers, whereas only 39.8% agreed that even near-miss errors, which did not cause harm to patients, should be disclosed. Among the six known effects of DPSI presented, participating physicians showed the highest level of agreement (89.6%) that “DPSI will lead physicians to pay more attention to patient safety in the future.” Among six barriers to DPSI, participants showed the most agreement (75.9%) that “It is unreasonable to demand DPSI in only the medical field, and disclosure is not actively conducted in other fields.” With respect to methods for facilitating DPSI, participants agreed that “A guideline for DPSI is needed” (91.2%) and “Manpower to support DPSI in hospitals is required” (89.1%). Meanwhile, 79.3% agreed that “If an apology law is enacted, physicians will perform more DPSI” and 72.4% that “I support the introduction of an apology law.”

Conclusions: Korean physicians generally have a positive perception of DPSI, but less than the general public. The items used here allow comprehensive examination of physicians’ perceptions regarding DPSI across countries.

Medical Ethics

Patient safety

Disclosure of patient safety incidents

Patient safety incident

Medical error

Near miss

Republic of Korea

When a patient safety incident occurs, it is important for medical professionals to handle it well in terms of quality and ethics of care [1]. Systematic and effective measures in response to such patient safety incidents are ensured by disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI), defined as follows: “When a patient safety incident occurs, medical professionals preemptively explain the incident to the patients and their caregivers, express sympathy and regret for the incident, deliver an apology and compensation appropriately if needed, and promise to prevent recurrence [2].” The emphasis on DPSI in the field of patient safety is based both on ethical considerations [1, 3] and on various known beneficial effects including reduced number of medical lawsuits and related costs; reduced intention to discipline medical staff; stronger physician–patient relationships; increased intention to revisit and recommend medical staff; higher assessment scores for quality of care; and reduced guilt among medical staff [4].

However, it is known to be difficult for medical staff to perform DPSI in actual clinical practice [2, 5]. Medical staffs are reluctant to perform DPSI even under situations when DPSI is needed due to fears about medical lawsuits and disciplinary actions, as well as about losing the trust of patients and colleagues [4]. In particular, among physicians, who are in the most critical position with regard to performing DPSI, not having accurate perceptions of DPSI and doubting its effects and benefits act as a major barrier to proper execution of DPSI [2]. It is known that physicians, who are often in a position to lead and supervise the entire patient treatment process, are highly likely to proactively decide how to handle patient safety incidents, and that patients and their caregivers want to hear an explanation about the patient safety incident from physicians [2].

Therefore, to improve DPSI in clinical practice, it is necessary to improve physicians’ perceptions regarding DPSI, which would first require assessment of how physicians perceive DPSI. While there are previous studies quantitatively examining physicians’ perception regarding DPSI [6-11], most of these are not recent studies and thus do not reflect the latest trends. Moreover, because most of these studies were conducted in Western countries, possible cultural differences in perception regarding DPSI cannot be dismissed. In particular, very few studies quantitatively examine the differences in perceptions of DPSI between physicians and the general public, including patients [6-8]. Considering that narrowing the differences in opinions on DPSI between physicians and the general public, including patients, is likely the first step toward activating DPSI in clinical practice, it seems necessary to clearly ascertain differences in perception of DPSI between physicians and the general public (henceforth, including patients) [10].

Accordingly, the present study conducted a questionnaire survey among physicians in Korea to investigate their perceptions of DPSI from various perspectives, including its effects, barriers to it, and methods facilitating it. In addition, the findings were compared to results obtained from a questionnaire survey about DPSI conducted on the general public to examine differences in perceptions.

The present study focused on the results obtained from a questionnaire survey of physicians within a bigger project investigating perceptions of DPSI among physicians, nurses, and medical students. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Ulsan Hospital (IRB Number: 2018-07-003).

Questionnaire development and content

The questionnaire items were developed by reviewing previous studies related to DPSI [2, 4, 12, 13]. In particular, the questionnaire was developed to be consistent with the questionnaire items used to survey perception regarding DPSI among the general public [12, 13]. The members of the research team possessed experience conducting several studies in the field of patient safety, and questionnaire items that could comprehensively survey perceptions of DPSI were developed from the perspective of medical professionals—two physicians and three nurses.

The entire questionnaire survey consisted of the following: 1) assessment of level of knowledge of patient-safety-related terminology; 2) perception of DPSI under various conditions; 3) opinions of each component of DPSI in hypothetical cases; 4) opinions of methods for facilitating DPSI; and 5) socio-demographic questions. The present study focuses on analyzing the results on perception regarding DPSI under various conditions (#2 above) and on methods for facilitating DPSI (#4 above). More specifically, for #2, opinions about DPSI were gathered according to the seriousness of medical error, related situation, effects of DPSI, and barriers to DPSI. For #4, perceptions about enhancement of ethical consciousness, DPSI education and guidelines, and apology law, which prohibit certain statements or expressions related to DPSI from being admissible in a lawsuit, were gathered. For socio-demographic questions, information about the participants’ sex, age group, and career stage (time since obtaining medical license) were collected.

Administration of the survey and participants

An anonymous online questionnaire survey was conducted. Prior to the survey, the participants were presented with a definition of DPSI based on the assumption that they might not be familiar with DPSI terminology. To encourage participation by physicians, the target population, promotional messages were posted in various online physician communities, and participants were also encouraged to promote the questionnaire survey to others to recruit more participants. The participants were given a small token of appreciation for their participation—a coffee voucher with monetary value of approximately 9,000 won (7 USD). The survey was set up such that each participant clicked through a unique link to complete the questionnaire,

Analysis

Descriptive analysis was performed to identify the response characteristics for each questionnaire item and the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. Physicians’ perceptions regarding DPSI as identified through the present study were compared to general public’s perceptions of DPSI identified in previous studies [13]. The chi-squared test was performed to check for statistically significant differences in perceptions regarding DPSI between the two groups. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata/SE13.1 (StataCorp, Texas, TX), and P<0.05 was determined to be statistically significant.

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 910 physicians participated in the present study. The majority of the participants were males (n=688, 75.6%) aged 30-39 years (n=748, 82.2%). Regarding time since obtaining medical license, 5-9 years was the most common response (n=614, 67.5%). More detailed socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are given in Table 1.

DPSI according to the seriousness of medical error

A higher percentage of participants responded that harm caused by medical error should be disclosed to patients and/or their (family or other non-professional) caregivers when the harm was more severe (Table 2). For example, 94.9% of participants agreed that major errors should be disclosed to patients and/or their caregivers, whereas only 39.8% agreed that even near-miss incidents, which did not cause any harm to the patient, should be disclosed to patients and/or their caregivers. In contrast, 93.3% of the general public responded that even near-miss incidents should be disclosed to patients and/or their caregivers, a statistically significant difference.

DPSI according to related situation

The participating physicians showed the highest level of agreement (87.4%) with the item “The better the previous physician–patient relationship, the more DPSI will be performed” (Table 3). Compared to the general public, there was a statistically significant difference in the level of agreement, but the difference was also smallest (5.3%) among the five items. On the other hand, the participating physicians showed the lowest level of agreement (64.4%) with the item “DPSI should be performed even if a physician thinks that patients and their caregivers have nothing to gain by having patient safety incidents acknowledged.” Compared to the general public, there was again a statistically significant difference in the level of agreement, and the difference was largest (difference of 24.7%) among the five items.

Perception regarding the effects of DPSI

Among the six known effects of DPSI presented, the participating physicians showed the highest level of agreement (89.6%) with the item “DPSI will lead physicians to pay more attention to patient safety in the future” (Table 4). This item showed the smallest difference in agreement between physicians and the general public (7.0%). On the other hand, the participating physicians showed the lowest level of agreement (62.4%) with the item “DPSI will lessen feelings of guilt for a physician.” The item that showed the largest difference in level of agreement between physicians and general public was “DPSI will make patients and their caregivers trust the physician more,” with agreement of 70.1% among the participating physicians and 94.1% among the general public (P<0.001).

Perception regarding the barriers of DPSI

Among the six barriers to DPSI presented, the participating physicians showed the highest level of agreement (75.9%) with the item “It is unreasonable to demand DPSI in only the medical field, and disclosure is not actively conducted in other fields.” This was also the item with the largest difference between physicians and the general public, with only 40.2% of the general public agreeing (P<0.001). On the other hand, the item “A physician who performs DPSI is less competent” showed the lowest level of agreement, with only 10.9% of the participating physicians agreeing. The level of agreement with this item among the general public was only 17.7%, showing the smallest difference between physicians and the general public among the items for barriers to DPSI (P<0.001). Meanwhile, the majority of both physicians and general public agreed with the item “DPSI will increase the incidence of medical lawsuits.”

Perception regarding method for facilitating DPSI

Among methods for facilitating DPSI, the participating physicians showed high level of agreement for the items “A guideline for DPSI is needed” (91.2%) and “Manpower to support DPSI in hospitals is required” (89.1%). Moreover, 79.3% of the participating physicians agreed that “If an apology law is enacted, physicians will perform more DPSI,” and 72.4% agreed that “I support the introduction of an apology law.” However, only 33.1% of the participating physicians agreed that “An apology law will limit patients’ ability to prove physicians’ negligence,” whereas 79.7% of the general public agreed with this item, showing a large difference in perception between the two groups (P<0.001). The item “I support the introduction of mandatory DPSI by law” also showed a large difference between the participating physicians (38.4%) and the general public (90.6%; P<0.001).

The present study investigated the opinions and perceptions of physicians in Korea regarding DPSI under various situations or conditions and methods for facilitating DPSI through an anonymous online questionnaire survey. Moreover, the results were compared to the general public’s perceptions regarding DPSI, identified using the same questionnaire items, to examine differences between the two groups. Based on the findings, it was confirmed that, for the most part, physicians in Korea have positive perception of DPSI, but also that when compared to the absolute support for DPSI exhibited by the general public, physicians showed relatively low agreement on the need for and effectiveness of DPSI, especially in given cases. In particular, a low percentage of physicians believed that even near-miss errors should be disclosed, and they showed the lowest level of agreement among the various effects of DPSI that “DPSI will lessen feelings of guilt for a physician” (62.4%), while a majority of the physicians also showed concerns about increased medical lawsuits due to DPSI. As demonstrated by their agreement with the statement that “I support the introduction of an apology law,” the participants showed positive perception, for the most part, of various methods for facilitating DPSI, despite also showing negative perceptions of legally mandating DPSI.

The most significant aspects of the present study are that it investigated current perceptions of DPSI among physicians in a non-Western country. Because most previous studies that quantitatively examined perceptions of DPSI among physicians were conducted in Western countries prior to 2010, they have the limitation of not reflecting the latest status of DPSI perceptions among physicians, in Western countries or globally [6-8, 10, 11]. Moreover, there are very few studies that comprehensively investigate perception of barriers to and facilitating methods for DPSI, or of how to perform DPSI under various situations and conditions, as the present study did. Monitoring changes in perception of DPSI among physicians by conducting regularly scheduled questionnaire surveys, using or making reference to the items used in the present study, should help establish measures to effectively implement DPSI in clinical practice [10].

Among relevant previous studies, the latest was by Iezzoni et al. published in 2012, in which open and honest communication with patients was investigated through a questionnaire survey of 1,891 physicians [9]. Although direct comparison between that study and the present study has limitations due to differences in the questionnaire items, methodologies, and characteristics of study participants, the findings of the present study show little difference in perception of DPSI when compared to that survey, conducted in 2009. For example, according to Iezzoni et al., only 65.9% of participants completely agreed that physicians should “disclose all significant medical errors to affected patients, [9] ” much as only 78.5% of the participants in the present study agreed that “minor errors should be disclosed to patients or their caregivers.” However, it is necessary to conduct follow-up studies with the same method and items to increase comparability.

A noteworthy finding in the present study was that there is a difference in perception regarding DPSI between physicians and the general public. First, regarding perceptions of the need for DPSI according to the level of harm caused by medical error, the results showed a large difference when near-miss errors occur. While 93.3% of the general public responded that even near-miss errors should be disclosed to patients and/or their caregivers [13], only 39.8% of the participating physicians agreed. This finding was consistent with the results of previous studies [14-16]. The present study did not identify specific reasons for the responses given, but it is probable that the physicians were concerned that disclosing near-miss errors could possibly cause patients and their caregivers to lose trust in medical staff [2]. However, considering that 89.6% of physicians agreed with the item “DPSI will lead physicians to pay more attention to patient safety in the future,” it may be necessary to promote the need to disclose near-miss errors in order to increase medical professionals’ recognition of various patient safety issues, including DPSI. This is because disclosing near-miss incidents, which lead to no specific harm to patients, does not create compensation issues, and there is evidence that DPSI can increase the level of trust that patients and their caregivers have in medical staff [4].

The physicians participating in the present study mostly recognized the various known effects of DPSI. However, while a majority of the participating physicians agreed with the item “DPSI will lessen feelings of guilt for a physician,” the level of agreement for that item was lower than that for other effects. Physicians involved in patient safety incidents are known to experience emotional suffering, and as such, they are often referred to as the “second victims” of such incidents [17]. A previous study conducted in Korea confirmed that physicians who experienced a patient safety incident felt embarrassment and fear as well as a great sense of regret and guilt towards the patients and their caregivers [18]. According a systematic literature review, DPSI is known to reduce physicians’ guilty feeling [4], but consideration should be given to the fact that the level of decrease may not be as large as researchers think. Therefore, there is the need to establish a system that can help at an institutional level to not only implement DPSI policies within an institution, but also organize counseling services to provide support to second victims [19].

With respect to the survey results on perception of barriers to DPSI, the physicians participating in the present study showed the highest level of agreement (75.9%) to the item “It is unreasonable to demand DPSI in only the medical field, and disclosure is not actively conducted in other fields.” Previous studies have investigated perception of various barriers to DPSI, such as fear about medical lawsuits and disciplinary actions or loss of trust from patients and colleagues [4], but almost no questionnaire surveys have asked questions about the possibility of uneven burden of demanding DPSI in the medical field but not, or in relation to, other fields. The findings of the present study are believed to have been influenced by dissatisfaction physicians feel toward government policies and the burden of societal demand for high ethical standards. Moreover, the present study also reconfirmed that fear of medical lawsuits is a major barrier to DPSI. According to Iezzoni et al., approximately 80% of physicians surveyed completely agreed with the item about being reluctant to disclose all mistakes to patients due to fear of lawsuits [9]. It is believed that a similar sentiment motivates the 67.0% of the participants in the present study who agreed with the item “DPSI will increase the incidence of medical lawsuits.” However, according a previous study in Korea that investigated the effects of DPSI among the general public using hypothetical cases, DPSI lowered the intention to file medical lawsuits and lowered criminal prosecution [12]. It is necessary to promote more awareness of these effects, perhaps by establishing a system for medical professionals who have experienced success with DPSI to share their experiences.

There is a need more generally to explore methods of facilitating DPSI in clinical practice. The physicians participating in the present study mostly agreed with various methods for facilitating DPSI. It is necessary for the government to provide policy support by establishing guidelines to regulate how to perform DPSI based on the approaches physicians support and their expertise in DPSI, developing and applying educational programming on this subject; and creating support teams within medical institutions. It is necessary to reference DPSI guidelines such as those developed in Canada and Australia to develop national Korean DPSI guidelines that reflect the reality of clinical practice in Korea and consider the preferences of Korean medical professionals, and to distribute such guidelines to medical institutions and implement policies recommending the use of such guidelines [20, 21].

Among legislative methods for facilitating DPSI, confirming support among physicians for an apology law is another significant finding of the present study. From the perspective of medical professionals, there is no particular reason to oppose an apology law, which would stipulate that sympathy, regret, or apology expressed in the course of performing DPSI would not be recognized as admission of legal responsibility during a civil medical lawsuit [22], but there has been no effort to determine the level of (dis)approval of an apology law among medical professionals, including physicians. It may be necessary to begin legal review of whether an apology law could be implemented in Korea, given the support for an apology law among the general public demonstrated in a previous study [13] and the support among physicians confirmed in the present study [1, 23]. However, considering that there is a large opinion gap between physicians and the general public on legally mandating DPSI, some controversy may be expected if this is done.

The limitations of the present study include the potentially limited representativeness of the physicians who participated. The study attempted to overcome any representativeness issue by having as many physicians as possible participate; however, due to the nature of the anonymous online questionnaire survey method, this representativeness issue could not be completed resolved. Nevertheless, using this type of questionnaire survey may be better for obtaining honest opinions from physicians about their views on DPSI, such as on ethical issues. It may be necessary to conduct future studies with various physician groups using a questionnaire similar to the one used in the present study and compare the findings between studies. Moreover, conducting similar questionnaire surveys with other medical professionals besides physicians, such as nurses and pharmacists, and comparing the results may be meaningful as well.

The present study investigated the perceptions of DPSI among physicians in Korea from various perspectives, including effects, barriers, and facilitating methods. Based on the findings, it was determined that a gap exists between physicians and general public in perception of DPSI. Moreover, the questionnaire survey items used in the present study should be generalizable and helpful to comprehensively examine physicians’ perceptions of DPSI in different countries and medical institutions that have plans to implement or investigate DPSI. Regular questionnaire surveys assessing DPSI attitudes among various relevant populations will be helpful to promote understanding of the importance and benefits of DPSI.

DPSI: disclosure of patient safety incidents.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Ulsan Hospital (IRB Number: 2018-07-003). The participants only who provided informed consents participated in the survey.

Consent for publication

All participants also provided consent for publication.

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in this article. If necessary, we can provide raw data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant, funded by the Korea government (MSIT; No. 2018R1C1B6005186). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Pyo J, Choi EY, Lee W, Jang SG, and Ock M participated in the data acquisition. Pyo J, Park YK, and Ock M. contributed to the analyses of data and the interpretation of data. Pyo J and Ock M were involved in drafting the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

ORCiDs:

Jeehee Pyo: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7644-8088

Eun Young Choi: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0602-2019

Won Lee: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6948-6948

Seung Gyeong Jang: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9121-3439

Young-Kwon Park: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9580-7840

Minsu Ock: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9949-9224

Sang-Il Lee: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1068-7542

Ock M, Lee SI. Disclosure of patient safety incidents: implications from ethical and quality of care perspectives. J Korean Med Assoc. 2017;60(5):417-27.
Ock M, Kim HJ, Jo MW, Lee SI. Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):50.
Simpson C, Aubin D, Fillatre T. The ethics of disclosure of patient safety incidents. Healthc Manag Forum. 2012;25(2):120-5.
Ock M, Lim SY, Jo MW, Lee SI. Frequency, expected effects, obstacles, and facilitators of disclosure of patient safety incidents: a systematic review. J Prev Med Public Health. 2017;50(2):68-82.
Choi EY, Pyo J, Ock M, Lee SI. Nurses’ perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents in Korea: a qualitative study. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2019;13(3):200-208.
Espin S, Levinson W, Regehr G, Baker GR, Lingard L. Error or “act of God”? A study of patients’ and operating room team members’ perceptions of error definition, reporting, and disclosure. Surgery. 2006;139(1):6-14.
Gallagher TH, Garbutt JM, Waterman AD, Flum DR, Larson EB, Waterman BM, et al. Choosing your words carefully: how physicians would disclose harmful medical errors to patients. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(15):1585-93.
Hingorani M, Wong T, Vafidis G. Attitudes after unintended injury during treatment a survey of doctors and patients. West J Med. 1999;171(2):81-2.
Iezzoni LI, Rao SR, DesRoches CM, Vogeli C, Campbell EG. Survey shows that at least some physicians are not always open or honest with patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(2):383-91.
Sorokin R, Riggio JM, Moleski S, Sullivan J. Physicians-in-training attitudes on patient safety: 2003 to 2008. J Patient Saf. 2011;7(3):133-8.
Vincent JL. Information in the ICU: are we being honest with our patients? The results of a European questionnaire. Intensive Care Med. 1998;24(12):1251-6.
Ock M, Choi EY, Jo MW, Lee SI. Evaluating the expected effects of disclosure of patient safety incidents using hypothetical cases in Korea. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199017.
13. Ock M, Choi EY, Jo MW, Lee SI. General public's attitudes toward disclosure of patient safety incidents in Korea: results of disclosure of patient safety incidents survey I. J Patient Saf. 2017 Oct 3. Updated 2019 Aug 13. Published online. (doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000428).
Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Garbutt JM, Kapp JM, Chan DK, Dunagan WC, et al. US and Canadian physicians’ attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(15):1605-11.
Loren DJ, Garbutt J, Dunagan WC, Bommarito KM, Ebers AG, Levinson W, et al. Risk managers, physicians, and disclosure of harmful medical errors. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(3):101-8.
Evans SB, Yu JB, Chagpar A. How radiation oncologists would disclose errors: results of a survey of radiation oncologists and trainees. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(2):e131-7.
Seys D, Wu AW, Van Gerven E, Vleugels A, Euwema M, Panella M, et al. Health care professionals as second victims after adverse events: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(2):135-162.
Lee W, Pyo J, Jang SG, Choi JE, Ock M. Experiences and responses of second victims of patient safety incidents in Korea: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):100.
Shapiro J, Robins L, Galowitz P, Gallagher TH, Bell S. Disclosure coaching: An ask-tell-ask model to support clinicians in disclosure conversations. J Patient Saf. 2018 May 16. Published online. (doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000491).
Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Canadian Disclosure Guidelines: Being open with patients and families. http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/en/toolsResources/disclosure/Pages/default.aspx. Updated 2011. Accessed Oct 13, 2019.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Open disclosure. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/clinical-governance/open-disclosure. Updated 2013. Accessed Oct 13, 2019.
Ho B, Liu E. Does sorry work? The impact of apology laws on medical malpractice. J Risk Uncertain. 2010;43:141-67.
Lee W, Park JY, Jang SG. An overview and implication of apology law and disclosure law in U.S.A. Korean Soc Law Med. 2018;19(1):81-111.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of survey participants

Variable		N	%
Age group	19-29	140	15.4
	30-39	748	82.2
	40-49	10	1.1
	≥ 50	12	1.3
Sex	Male	688	75.6
Sex	Female	222	24.4
Career stage (time since obtaining medical license)	0-4	208	22.8
	5-9	614	67.5
	10-19	77	8.5
	≥ 20	11	1.2
Total		910	100.0

Table 2. Perceptions of DPSI according to the level of harm resulting from medical errors

	Physician		General Public		P
	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	P
Major errors should be disclosed to patients or their caregivers.	864 (94.9)	46 (5.1)	699 (99.9)	1 (0.1)	<0.001
Minor errors should be disclosed to patients or their caregivers.	714 (78.5)	196 (21.5)	685 (97.9)	15 (2.1)	<0.001
Near misses should be disclosed to patients or their caregivers.	362 (39.8)	548 (60.2)	652 (93.3)	47 (6.7)	<0.001

Table 3. Attitudes toward DPSI according to various scenarios in patient safety incidents

	Physician		General Public		P
	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	P
DPSI should be performed even if a physician thinks that patients and their caregivers would not be able to understand what the physician said.	776 (85.3)	134 (14.7)	694 (99.3)	5 (0.7)	<0.001
DPSI should be performed even if a physician thinks that patients and their caregivers would not be able to understand patient safety incidents.	687 (75.5)	223 (24.5)	658 (94.0)	42 (6.0)	<0.001
DPSI should be performed even if a physician thinks that patients and their caregivers could not know whether patient safety incidents occurred without being told.	707 (77.7)	203 (22.3)	670 (95.7)	30 (4.3)	<0.001
DPSI should be performed even if a physician thinks that patients and their caregivers have nothing to gain by having patient safety incidents acknowledged.	586 (64.4)	324(35.6)	623(89.1)	76(10.9)	<0.001
The better the previous physician–patient relationship, the more DPSI will be performed.	795 (87.4)	115(12.6)	649(92.7)	51(7.3)	<0.001

Table 4. Opinions on the effects of DPSI

	Physician		General Public		P
	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	P
DPSI will make patients and their caregivers trust the physician more.	638 (70.1)	272 (29.9)	658 (94.1)	41 (5.9)	<0.001
I am more likely to recommend a physician who performs DPSI.	652 (71.6)	258 (28.4)	597 (85.4)	102 (14.6)	<0.001
I will revisit a physician who performs DPSI.	660 (72.5)	250 (27.5)	615 (88.0)	84 (12.0)	<0.001
A physician who performs DPSI will offer better medical services.	630 (69.2)	280 (30.8)	623 (89.3)	75 (10.7)	<0.001
DPSI will lead physicians to pay more attention to patient safety in the future.	815 (89.6)	95 (10.4)	675 (96.6)	24 (3.4)	<0.001
DPSI will lessen feelings of guilt for a physician.	568 (62.4)	342 (37.6)	594 (85.1)	104 (14.9)	<0.001

Table 5. Perceptions of barriers to DPSI

	Physician		General Public		P
	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	P
DPSI will increase the incidence of medical lawsuits.	610 (67.0)	300 (33.0)	399 (57.0)	301 (43.0)	<0.001
If DPSI is performed, a physician will lose his or her honor.	333 (36.6)	577 (63.4)	239 (34.1)	461 (65.9)	0.308
If DPSI is performed, the physician will be punished by his or her hospital.	437 (48.0)	473 (52.0)	278 (39.8)	421 (60.2)	0.001
A physician who performs DPSI is less competent.	99 (10.9)	811 (89.1)	124 (17.7)	575 (82.3)	<0.001
If DPSI is performed, the physician will be criticized by his or her colleagues.	316 (34.7)	594 (65.3)	291 (41.6)	409 (58.4)	0.005
It is unreasonable to demand DPSI in only the medical field, and disclosure is not actively conducted in other fields.	691 (75.9)	219 (24.1)	281 (40.2)	418 (59.8)	<0.001

Table 6. Opinions on methods for facilitating DPSI

	Physician		General Public		P
	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Disagree N (%)	P
It is necessary to strengthen the ethical mindset of physicians for DPSI.	778 (85.5)	132 (14.5)	697 (99.6)	3 (0.4)	<0.001
A training course for DPSI is needed.	794 (87.3)	116 (12.7)	682 (97.4)	18 (2.6)	<0.001
Manpower to support DPSI in hospitals is required.	811 (89.1)	99 (10.9)	666 (95.3)	33 (4.7)	<0.001
A guideline for DPSI is needed.	830 (91.2)	80 (8.8)	681 (97.3)	19 (2.7)	<0.001
If apology law is enacted, physicians will perform more DPSI.	722 (79.3)	188 (20.7)	660 (94.3)	40 (5.7)	<0.001
Apology law will limit patients’ ability to prove physicians’ negligence.	301 (33.1)	609 (66.9)	558 (79.7)	142 (20.3)	<0.001
I support the introduction of apology law.	659 (72.4)	251 (27.6)	668 (95.4)	32 (4.6)	<0.001
I support the introduction of mandatory DPSI by law.	349 (38.4)	561 (61.6)	634 (90.6)	66 (9.4)	<0.001

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 08 Oct, 2020

Read the published version in PLOS ONE →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Korean physicians’ perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Questionnaire development and content

Administration of the survey and participants

Analysis

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics

DPSI according to the seriousness of medical error

DPSI according to related situation

Perception regarding the effects of DPSI

Perception regarding the barriers of DPSI

Perception regarding method for facilitating DPSI

Discussion

Conclusions

List of Abbreviations

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Availability of data and material

Competing interests

Funding

Authors’ contributions

ORCiDs:

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1