Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39939873›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

What can we learn from patient and family experiences of open disclosure and how they have been evaluated? A systematic review.

Dimuthu Rathnayake, Ao Sasame, Apolonia Radomska, Éidín Ní Shé, Eilish McAuliffe, Aoife De Brún

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Patient and Family Perspectives on Statutory Duty of Candour Following Serious Adverse Patient Safety Events.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Using an evidence-informed co-design approach to develop a mechanism to measure experiences of the open disclosure process: an Irish case study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors.

Dimuthu RathnayakeUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Dimuthu.rathnayake@ucd.ie.
Ao SasameUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Apolonia RadomskaUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Éidín Ní ShéRCSI Graduate School of Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Eilish McAuliffeUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Aoife De BrúnUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpen disclosure, or 'error disclosure,' is a policy requiring healthcare professionals to promptly offer an honest apology after an adverse event. While the fundamental principles of open disclosure have evolved into an important right for patients who experience adverse events, the process also plays an integral role in ensuring continuous improvements in the delivery of patient care. Healthcare providers often encounter challenges in fully adopting open disclosure processes, limiting their use in practice. This systematic review aims to explore patient experiences following open disclosure, focusing on how these experiences are being measured and evaluated. By examining patient experiences, this review seeks to enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of open disclosure and inform improvements in healthcare communication practices.

methodsA detailed search strategy was developed to identify relevant literature published between 2008 and 2023. The review focused on original research in English, emphasising qualitative or quantitative studies that evaluate and measure patient experiences of disclosure. Four major databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) were searched for studies reporting details of patients/clients/service users and their families/relevant others who have experienced the OD process/duty of candour. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise included studies. The review adopted a narrative approach to synthesise the findings.

resultsFrom the initial 8,940 studies identified, 26 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 17 qualitative studies, two quantitative studies, three mixed-methods studies, and four case studies. The study explored patients' and service users' perspectives on their experiences with OD following patient safety incidents. The synthesis highlights five key themes across the included studies: timeliness of disclosure, quality of communication, addressing patient and family support needs, organisational arrangements for the OD process, and viewing OD as a forward-looking conversation.

conclusionsWhile explicit open disclosure policies are common in healthcare, routine assessments of patient and family experiences remain infrequent. Patients and families, as service users, perceive safety incidents differently from healthcare providers and hold specific expectations. They emphasise the importance of transparent, ongoing communication, emotional support, and active involvement in post-incident evaluations, considering OD vital for building trust and achieving resolution after adverse events.

Indexed as

DisclosureFamilyMedical ErrorsTruth DisclosureCommunicationHumansQualitative ResearchAdverse eventsOpen disclosureOpen disclosure policiesPatient experience

Identifiers

PMID39939873
PMCPMC11817258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.