Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28408860›Full record

ArticleClinical ethics2017

Is imperfection becoming easier to live with for doctors?

Reidun Førde, Olaf G Aasland

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 76% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Reidun FørdeInstitute for Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway.
Olaf G AaslandInstitute for Studies of the Medical Profession, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBeing involved in serious patient injury is devastating for most doctors. During the last two decades, several efforts have been launched to improve Norwegian doctors' coping with adverse events and complaints.

methodsThe method involved survey to a representative sample of 1792 Norwegian doctors in 2012. The questions on adverse events and its effects were previously asked in 2000.

resultsResponse rate was 71%. More doctors reported to have been involved in episodes with serious patient harm in 2012 (35%) than in 2000 (28%), and more of the episodes were reported as required by law. Doctors below age 50 report better support from colleagues, more collegial retrospective discussion on the event and less patient/family blame. In all, 27% of the doctors had been reported to the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision; 79% of these complaints were rejected; 73% of the doctors who had received a reaction from the health authorities found the reaction reasonable, but almost one out of five practiced more testing and referrals after a complaint and 25% claimed that the complaint had made them into a more fearful doctor.

conclusionOur results indicate that adverse events are being met more openly in 2012 than in 2000, and that coping with imperfection and patient complaints is less devastating for new generations of doctors.

Indexed as

Adverse eventscomplaintscopingdoctors

Identifiers

PMID28408860
PMCPMC5375019
OpenAlexW2560233342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.