↓ Skip to main content

Error Disclosure in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: A Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Error Disclosure in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: A Review of the Literature
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, August 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.nlit1-1608
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ifeoma U Perkins

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the fields of anatomic and clinical pathology have made strong commitments to improving patient safety, including the creation of formal and informal guidelines for assessing and reporting quality lapses. Unfortunately, some medical errors are inevitable. Patient safety experts advocate full and complete disclosure of all serious medical errors in an effort to preserve the patient-physician relationship and minimize the risk of harm to patients. While evidence suggests that most pathologists disclose serious medical errors, many do not disclose such errors to patients. A literature review of articles published on diagnostic error disclosure in pathology and laboratory medicine suggests that there are in fact persistent barriers to the disclosure of diagnostic errors that are specific to pathology. A number of these barriers are considered here, followed by recommendations for improving patient safety in pathology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%