ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024
[Learning from Errors: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Reports on Malpractice in Family Medicine].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpert committees of the German medical associations provide a free and out-of-court evaluation of putative cases of medical malpractice. They prepare reports that contain valuable information on process steps that precede the actual treatment error. The aim of the present study was to identify and systematically categorize individual process steps in the expert reports and thus to lay the foundations for the understanding of malpractice evaluation processes.
methodsIn this study, ten randomly selected and anonymized expert reports of the Expert Committee for Questions of Medical Liability of the District Medical Association of South Württemberg with identified GP treatment errors were evaluated, using the method of qualitative content analysis. In an iterative process, central elements of expert reports were classified into a deductively and inductively built category system.
resultsSix main categories with associated subcategories were identified: 1) structural aspects of the report, 2) doctor-patient communication, 3) medical course, 4) patient's experience, 5) action by the GP team, and 6) coordinative role in the health care system. The category system showed sufficient reliability with repeated use.
conclusionThis study offers an opportunity to learn from errors. The proposed system allows to structure the complexity of expert reports on GP malpractice and may thus serve as a tool in various contexts. In particular, it facilitates the preparation and comparative analysis of reports in a structured way. It could also be used in health care research as well as in education and training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.