In the aftermath of medical error : Caring for patients, family, and the healthcare workers involved

Medical errors, in particular those resulting in harm, pose a serious situation for patients ("first victims") and the healthcare workers involved ("second victims") and can have long-lasting and distressing consequences. To prevent a second traumatization, appropriate and empathic interaction with all persons involved is essential besides error analysis. Patients share a nearly universal, broad preference for a complete disclosure of incidents, regardless of age, gender, or education. This includes the personal, timely and unambiguous disclosure of the adverse event, information relating to the event, its causes and consequences, and an apology and sincere expression of regret. While the majority of healthcare professionals generally support and honest and open disclosure of adverse events, they also face various barriers which impede the disclosure (e.g., fear of legal consequences). Despite its essential importance, disclosure of adverse events in practice occurs in ways that are rarely acceptable to patients and their families. The staff involved often experiences acute distress and an intense emotional response to the event, which may become chronic and increase the risk of depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorders. Communication with peers is vital for people to be able to cope constructively and protectively with harmful errors. Survey studies among healthcare workers show, however, that they often do not receive sufficient individual and institutional support. Healthcare organizations should prepare for medical errors and harmful events and implement a communication plan and a support system that covers the requirements and different needs of patients and the staff involved.

Ready for a crisis? How supervisory boards affect the formalized crisis procedures of small and medium-sized family firms in Germany

Overcoming a crisis situation in which the socioemotional wealth (SEW) of a family is at risk can be threatened by a lack of formal crisis procedures, which can increase the probability of organizational decline. Thus, not being prepared for a crisis situation may be a critical factor in the long-term survival of family firms. From a corporate governance perspective, supervisory boards may achieve higher levels of crisis readiness. Applying the resourced-based view and SEW theory, we analyze the relationship between family ownership and formalized crisis procedures in 150 small and medium-sized German firms. Our results show that formalized crisis procedures decrease as family ownership increases. Including supervisory boards in our analysis, we find a significant moderating effect of supervisory boards on the relationship between family ownership and formalized crisis procedures. Specifically, our results suggest that family firms with supervisory boards show similar levels of formalized crisis procedures as non-family firms with supervisory boards. In contrast, family firms without supervisory boards exhibit lower levels of formalized crisis procedures compared with non-family firms without supervisory boards. We also discuss managerial implications, limitations, and future research.