The National Open Disclosure Pilot: evaluation of a policy implementation initiative

View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
M Iedema, Rick
Mallock, Nadine
Sorensen, Roslyn
Manias, Elizabeth
Tuckett, Anthony G.
Williams, Allison
Perrott, Bruce
Brownhill, Suzanne
Piper, Donella
Hor, Suyin
Hegney, Desley
Scheeres, Hermine
Jorm, Christine
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2008
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Objective: To determine which aspects of open disclosure "work" for patients and health care staff, based on an evaluation of the National Open Disclosure Pilot. Design, setting and participants: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured and open-ended interviews conducted between March and October 2007 with 131 clinical staff and 23 patients and family members who had participated in one or more open disclosure meetings. 21 of 40 pilot hospital sites, in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, were included in the evaluation. Participating health care staff comprised 49 doctors, 20 nurses, and 62 managerial ...
View more >Objective: To determine which aspects of open disclosure "work" for patients and health care staff, based on an evaluation of the National Open Disclosure Pilot. Design, setting and participants: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured and open-ended interviews conducted between March and October 2007 with 131 clinical staff and 23 patients and family members who had participated in one or more open disclosure meetings. 21 of 40 pilot hospital sites, in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, were included in the evaluation. Participating health care staff comprised 49 doctors, 20 nurses, and 62 managerial and support staff. In-depth qualitative data analysis involved mapping of discursive themes and subthemes across the interview transcripts. Results: Interviewees broadly supported open disclosure; they expressed uncertainty about its deployment and consequences, and made detailed suggestions of ways to optimise the experience, including careful pre-planning, participation by senior medical staff, and attentiveness to consumers' experience of the adverse event. Conclusion: Despite some uncertainties, the national evaluation indicates strong support for open disclosure from both health care staff and consumers, as well as a need to resource this new practice.
View less >
View more >Objective: To determine which aspects of open disclosure "work" for patients and health care staff, based on an evaluation of the National Open Disclosure Pilot. Design, setting and participants: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured and open-ended interviews conducted between March and October 2007 with 131 clinical staff and 23 patients and family members who had participated in one or more open disclosure meetings. 21 of 40 pilot hospital sites, in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, were included in the evaluation. Participating health care staff comprised 49 doctors, 20 nurses, and 62 managerial and support staff. In-depth qualitative data analysis involved mapping of discursive themes and subthemes across the interview transcripts. Results: Interviewees broadly supported open disclosure; they expressed uncertainty about its deployment and consequences, and made detailed suggestions of ways to optimise the experience, including careful pre-planning, participation by senior medical staff, and attentiveness to consumers' experience of the adverse event. Conclusion: Despite some uncertainties, the national evaluation indicates strong support for open disclosure from both health care staff and consumers, as well as a need to resource this new practice.
View less >
Journal Title
Medical Journal of Australia
Volume
188
Issue
7
Publisher URI
Copyright Statement
Iedema RAM, Mallock NA, Sorensen RJ, et al. The National Open Disclosure Pilot: evaluation of a policy implementation initiative. Med J Aust 2008; 188 (7): 397-400. © Copyright 2008 The Medical Journal of Australia – reproduced with permission.
Subject
Clinical Sciences not elsewhere classified
Medical and Health Sciences
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences