↓ Skip to main content

Disclosure of Adverse Events and Errors in Surgical Care: Challenges and Strategies for Improvement

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Disclosure of Adverse Events and Errors in Surgical Care: Challenges and Strategies for Improvement
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00268-014-2564-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren E. Lipira, Thomas H. Gallagher

Abstract

The disclosure of adverse events to patients, including those caused by medical errors, is a critical part of patient-centered healthcare and a fundamental component of patient safety and quality improvement. Disclosure benefits patients, providers, and healthcare institutions. However, the act of disclosure can be difficult for physicians. Surgeons struggle with disclosure in unique ways compared with other specialties, and disclosure in the surgical setting has specific challenges. The frequency of surgical adverse events along with a dysfunctional tort system, the team structure of surgical staff, and obstacles created inadvertently by existing surgical patient safety initiatives may contribute to an environment not conducive to disclosure. Fortunately, there are multiple strategies to address these barriers. Participation in communication and resolution programs, integration of Just Culture principles, surgical team disclosure planning, refinement of informed consent and morbidity and mortality processes, surgery-specific professional standards, and understanding the complexities of disclosing other clinicians' errors all have the potential to help surgeons provide patients with complete, satisfactory disclosures. Improvement in the regularity and quality of disclosures after surgical adverse events and errors will be key as the field of patient safety continues to advance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
India 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 18 26%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 40%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,615,251
of 24,248,886 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,177
of 4,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,736
of 231,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#23
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,248,886 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.