Beyond Blame: cultural barriers to medical reporting

The paper explores the attitudes of medical physicians towards adverse incident reporting in health care, with particular focus on the inhibiting factors or barriers to participation. It is recognised that there are major barriers to medical reporting, such as the ‘culture of blame’. There are, however, few detailed qualitative accounts of medical culture as it relates to incident reporting. Drawing on a 2-year qualitative case study in the UK, this paper presents data gathered from 28 semi-structured interviews with specialist physicians. The findings suggest that blame certainly inhibits medical reporting, but other cultural issues were also significant. It was commonly accepted by doctors that errors are an ‘inevitable’ and potentially unmanageable feature of medical work and incident reporting was therefore ‘pointless’. It was also found that reporting was discouraged by an anti-bureaucratic sentiment and rejection of excessive administrative duties. Doctors were also apprehensive about the increased potential for managers and non-physicians to engage in the regulation of medical quality through the use of incident data. The paper argues that the promotion of incident reporting must engage with more than the ubiquitous ‘culture of blame’ and instead address the ‘culture of medicine’, especially as it relates to the collegial and professional control of quality.

Is quality of life measurement likely to be a proxy for health needs assessment in patients with coronary artery disease?

BACKGROUND: The identification of patients' health needs is pivotal in optimising the quality of health care, increasing patient satisfaction and directing resource allocation. Health needs are complex and not so easily evaluated as health-related quality of life (HRQL), which is becoming increasingly accepted as a means of providing a more global, patient-orientated assessment of the outcome of health care interventions than the simple medical model. The potential of HRQL as a surrogate measure of healthcare needs has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES AND METHOD: A generic (Short Form-12; SF-12) and a disease-specific questionnaire (Seattle Angina Questionnaire; SAQ) were tested for their potential to predict health needs in patients with acute coronary disease. A wide range of healthcare needs were determined using a questionnaire specifically developed for this purpose. RESULTS: With the exception of information needs, healthcare needs were highly correlated with health-related quality of life. Patients with limited enjoyment of personal interests, weak financial situation, greater dependency on others to access health services, and dissatisfaction with accommodation reported poorer HRQL (SF-12: p < 0.001; SAQ: p < 0.01). Difficulties with mobility, aids to daily living and activities requiring assistance from someone else were strongly associated with both generic and disease-specific questionnaires (SF-12: r = 0.46-0.55, p < 0.01; SAQ: r = 0.53-0.65, p < 0.001). Variables relating to quality of care and health services were more highly correlated with SAQ components (r = 0.33-0.59) than with SF-12 (r = 0.07-0.33). Overall, the disease-specific Seattle Angina Questionnaire was superior to the generic Short Form-12 in detecting healthcare needs in patients with coronary disease. Receiver-operator curves supported the sensitivity of HRQL tools in detecting health needs. CONCLUSION: Healthcare needs are complex and developing suitable questionnaires to measure these is difficult and time-consuming. Without a satisfactory means of measuring these needs, the extent to which disease impacts on health will continue to be underestimated. Further investigation on larger populations is warranted but HRQL tools appear to be a reasonable proxy for healthcare needs, as they identify the majority of needs in patients with coronary disease, an observation not previously reported in this patient group

Self-archiving publications

This chapter discusses the historical development, current practice and future prospects of the self-archiving of research papers in open-access repositories (so-called 'e-print archives'). It describes how the development of interoperable e-print repositories in a number of subject communities has shown that self-archiving can benefit academic researchers (and potentially others) by enabling quick and easy access to the research literature and therefore maximising the impact potential of papers. Realising that the possible benefits are high and the technical entry barriers low, many organisations such as universities have recently tried to encourage widespread self-archiving by setting up institutional repositories. However, major barriers to self-archiving remain - most of them cultural and managerial. There are concerns about quality control, intellectual property rights, disturbing the publishing status quo, and workload. Ways in which these issues are currently being addressed are discussed in this chapter. A number of self-archiving initiatives in different countries have been set up to address the concerns and to kick-start e-print repository use. However, issues remain which require further investigation; those discussed in this chapter include discipline differences, definitions of 'publication', versioning problems, digital preservation, costing and funding models, and metadata standards. The ways in which these issues are resolved will be important in determining the future of self-archiving. Possible futures are discussed with particular reference to journal publishing and quality control. If widely adopted, self-archiving might come to assume a central place in the scholarly communication process, but a great deal of restructuring of the process needs to take place before this potential can be realised.