IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
William Lea, Luke Budworth, Jane O'Hara, Charles Vincent, Rebecca Lawton
{"title":"Investigators are human too: outcome bias and perceptions of individual culpability in patient safety incident investigations.","authors":"William Lea, Luke Budworth, Jane O'Hara, Charles Vincent, Rebecca Lawton","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare patient safety investigations inappropriately focus on individual culpability and the target of recommendations is often on the behaviours of individuals, rather than addressing latent failures of the system. The aim of this study was to explore whether outcome bias might provide some explanation for this. Outcome bias occurs when the ultimate outcome of a past event is given excessive weight, in comparison to other information, when judging the preceding actions or decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a survey in which participants were each presented with three incident scenarios, followed by the findings of an investigation. The scenarios remained the same, but the patient outcome was manipulated. Participants were recruited via social media and we examined three groups (general public, healthcare staff and experts) and those with previous incident involvement. Participants were asked about staff responsibility, avoidability, importance of investigating and to select up to five recommendations to prevent recurrence. Summary statistics and multilevel modelling were used to examine the association between patient outcome and the above measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>212 participants completed the online survey. Worsening patient outcome was associated with increased judgements of staff responsibility for causing the incident as well as greater motivation to investigate. More participants selected punitive recommendations when patient outcome was worse. While avoidability did not appear to be associated with patient outcome, ratings were high suggesting participants always considered incidents to be highly avoidable. Those with patient safety expertise demonstrated these associations but to a lesser extent, when compared with other participants. We discuss important comparisons between the participant groups as well as those with previous incident involvement, as victim or staff member.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Outcome bias has a significant impact on judgements following incidents and investigations and may contribute to the continued focus on individual culpability and individual focused recommendations observed following investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017926","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医疗患者安全调查不适当地将重点放在个人罪责上,建议的目标往往是个人行为,而不是解决系统的潜在失误。本研究的目的是探讨结果偏差是否可以解释这一现象。与其他信息相比,在判断之前的行动或决定时,如果过分看重过去事件的最终结果,就会出现结果偏差:我们进行了一项调查,向每位参与者展示了三个事件场景,然后是调查结果。这些情景保持不变,但患者的结果却有所改变。我们通过社交媒体招募参与者,并对三类人群(普通大众、医护人员和专家)以及曾经参与过事故调查的人群进行了调查。参与者被问及员工责任、可避免性、调查的重要性,并最多可选择五项建议以防止事件再次发生。结果:212 名参与者完成了在线调查。患者病情恶化与对员工造成事故责任的判断增加以及调查动机增强有关。当患者治疗结果恶化时,更多的参与者选择了惩罚性建议。虽然可避免性似乎与患者预后无关,但评分较高表明参与者始终认为事故是极易避免的。与其他参与者相比,具有患者安全专业知识的参与者表现出了这些关联,但程度较轻。我们讨论了参与者群体之间的重要比较,以及那些曾经作为受害者或工作人员参与过事件的参与者之间的重要比较:结果偏差对事件和调查后的判断有重大影响,并可能导致调查后继续关注个人罪责和以个人为重点的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigators are human too: outcome bias and perceptions of individual culpability in patient safety incident investigations.

Background: Healthcare patient safety investigations inappropriately focus on individual culpability and the target of recommendations is often on the behaviours of individuals, rather than addressing latent failures of the system. The aim of this study was to explore whether outcome bias might provide some explanation for this. Outcome bias occurs when the ultimate outcome of a past event is given excessive weight, in comparison to other information, when judging the preceding actions or decisions.

Methods: We conducted a survey in which participants were each presented with three incident scenarios, followed by the findings of an investigation. The scenarios remained the same, but the patient outcome was manipulated. Participants were recruited via social media and we examined three groups (general public, healthcare staff and experts) and those with previous incident involvement. Participants were asked about staff responsibility, avoidability, importance of investigating and to select up to five recommendations to prevent recurrence. Summary statistics and multilevel modelling were used to examine the association between patient outcome and the above measures.

Results: 212 participants completed the online survey. Worsening patient outcome was associated with increased judgements of staff responsibility for causing the incident as well as greater motivation to investigate. More participants selected punitive recommendations when patient outcome was worse. While avoidability did not appear to be associated with patient outcome, ratings were high suggesting participants always considered incidents to be highly avoidable. Those with patient safety expertise demonstrated these associations but to a lesser extent, when compared with other participants. We discuss important comparisons between the participant groups as well as those with previous incident involvement, as victim or staff member.

Interpretation: Outcome bias has a significant impact on judgements following incidents and investigations and may contribute to the continued focus on individual culpability and individual focused recommendations observed following investigations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信