Clinical risk management and the ethics of open disclosure : part 1 : benefits and risks to patient safety

Patient safety experts and other authorities have strongly postulated the open disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients as an essential component of effective clinical risk management in health care. Commentators also contend that ‘when things go wrong’, openly disclosing such events to the patient and his or her nominated support person is simply ‘the right thing to do’. Despite the obvious importance of the issue of open disclosure and its possible implications for the nursing profession, it has not been comprehensively addressed in the nursing literature. A key aim of this article (the first of a two-part discussion) is to contribute to the positive project of redressing this oversight by providing a brief overview of what open disclosure is and what its intended purpose, aims, and rationale are. Consideration is also given to the risks and benefits of open disclosure as a public policy and whether it will succeed in achieving the anticipated outcomes envisaged. In a second article (to be presented as Part II), the ethics of open disclosure and its possible implications for the nursing profession are explored.

Using supervised and unsupervised techniques to determine groups of patients with different doctor-patient stability

Decision trees and self organising feature maps (SOFM) are frequently used to identify groups. This research aims to compare the similarities between any groupings found between supervised (Classification and Regression Trees - CART) and unsupervised classification (SOFM), and to identify insights into factors associated with doctor-patient stability. Although CART and SOFM uses different learning paradigms to produce groupings, both methods came up with many similar groupings. Both techniques showed that self perceived health and age are important indicators of stability. In addition, this study has indicated profiles of patients that are at risk which might be interesting to general practitioners.

Therapist-assisted, internet-based treatment for panic disorder: can general practitioners achieve comparable patient outcomes to psychologists

Background: Mental illness is an escalating concern worldwide. The management of disorders such as anxiety and depression largely falls to family doctors or general practitioners (GPs). However, GPs are often too time constrained and may lack the necessary training to adequately manage the needs of such patients. Evidence-based Internet interventions represent a potentially valuable resource to reduce the burden of care and the cost of managing mental health disorders within primary care settings and, at the same time, improve patient outcomes.
Objective: The present study sought to extend the efficacy of a therapist-assisted Internet treatment program for panic disorder, Panic Online, by determining whether comparable outcomes could be achieved and maintained when Panic Online was supported by either GPs or psychologists.
Methods: Via a natural groups design, 96 people with a primary diagnosis of panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia) completed the Panic Online program over 12 weeks with the therapeutic assistance of their GP (n = 53), who had received specialist training in cognitive behavioral therapy, or a clinical psychologist (n = 43). Participants completed a clinical diagnostic telephone interview, conducted by a psychologist, and a set of online questionnaires to assess panic-related symptoms at three time periods (pretreatment, posttreatment, and 6 month follow-up).
Results: Both treatments led to clinically significant improvements on measures of panic and panic-related symptomatology from pretreatment to posttreatment. Both groups were shown to significantly improve over time. Improvements for both groups were maintained at follow-up; however, the groups did differ significantly on two quality of life domains: physical (F₁,₈₂ = 9.13, P = .00) and environmental (F₁,₈₂ = 4.41, P = .04). The attrition rate was significantly higher among those being treated by their GP (χ²₁ = 4.40, P = .02, N = 96).
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that Internet-based interventions are an effective adjunct to existing mental health care systems. Consequently, this may facilitate and enhance the delivery of evidence-based mental health treatments to increasingly large segments of the population via primary care systems and through suitably trained health professionals.

Pharmaceutical ecomonics and politics vs. patient safety : Lumiracoxib in Australia

Lumiracoxib (Prexige©) 200 mg was listed in Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) schedules on 01 August 2006. The listing was intended as a cost-minimisation strategy, as lumiracoxib 200 mg was deemed equivalent in therapeutic effect to celecoxib (Celebrex©) 200 mg, and was available at a lower cost. By the time of listing on the PBS, a safety re-evaluation of the recommended daily dose of lumiracoxib was being considered in other national regulatory jurisdictions. Within 3 months of listing, the manufacturer revised the recommended dosage to half that of the PBS-listed dosage. However, the PBS listing was neither revoked nor modified. At the time of listing on the PBS, lumiracoxib was known to be 17 times as biochemically selective in inhibiting the COX-2 isoform as celecoxib, and twice as selective as rofecoxib, already withdrawn for safety reasons. Safety concerns had already been raised about adverse hepatic outcomes on daily doses of lumiracoxib 200 mg. Communication of information about the risk potential of lumiracoxib was inadequate. Economic and political considerations were prioritised over patient safety, and lumiracoxib 200 mg remained available via the PBS until 10 August 2007, when it was withdrawn for safety reasons following cases of hepatic morbidity and mortality.