Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40895999›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Focused Professional Practice Evaluation and the Weaponization of Anonymous Reporting: Erosion of Care and Fairness.

Dominic Moore, Jiawen Zhan, Ross Matlack, Mohammad Zaki, Uzma Samadani, Hamid Abbasi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Dominic MooreSpine Surgery, Inspired Spine-Avicenna Technical University (ATU), Minneapolis, USA.
Jiawen ZhanApplied AI and Programming, Avicenna Technical University (ATU), Minneapolis, USA.
Ross MatlackHealthcare Administration, Inspired Spine-Avicenna Technical University (ATU), Minneapolis, USA.
Mohammad ZakiLegal, Avicenna Technical University (ATU), Minneapolis, USA.
Uzma SamadaniNeurosurgery, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Centre (VAMC), Minneapolis, USA.
Hamid AbbasiSpine Surgery, Inspired Spine-Avicenna Technical University (ATU), Minneapolis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance Focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE) was designed to increase patient safety, and anonymous reporting systems are often implemented to empower staff at all levels of an organization to speak up without the fear of reproach. However, the impact of these systems on patient outcomes remains largely unexamined. In this study, we survey physicians to assess whether they believe these mechanisms improve patient care or well-being. Objective The goal of this study was to assess potential declines in patient safety and care due to FPPE and anonymous reporting, as well as their potential misuse, through physician participation in a 29-question survey. Design, setting, participants A 29-question survey was conducted from February to March 2025, targeting a national sample of 152 U.S.-based surgeons. The survey included 29 questions addressing experiences with FPPE/anonymous reporting, perceptions of fairness, career consequences, and clinical practice changes. Main outcomes The primary outcomes that this study hoped to measure were changes in patient care and the impacts on the lives of surgeons. Results Of 152 physician respondents, 19.1% stated they had never been on the receiving end of a filed report. Despite this distinction, they described negative trends in patient care as well as professional practice similar to those experienced by individuals who had been reported. Respondents identified ways in which anonymous reporting and FPPE processes potentially compromise patient care: 57% (n=68) avoided high-risk cases, 70.8% (n=85) practiced defensively, 45.5% (n=56) reported erosion of operating room camaraderie and trust, and some described overprescription of narcotics or sedatives to placate staff. Many physicians feared retaliation for raising safety concerns or confronting problematic behavior, particularly from nursing staff, leading to widespread silence. In addition, many expressed personal accounts of deteriorating work culture, ruined careers, emotional distress, and even suicidal ideation. These systems not only led to real and direct harm to patients but also held the potential to be weaponized by those in power, and many respondents who felt as such cited a lack of due process, inconsistent standards, and vague or unverifiable allegations. Supporting this, 64.2% (n=79) deemed FPPE unfair, 62.3% (n=76) cited differential treatment, and 50.8% (n=62) encountered opaque or unclear disputes. Overall, only 6% (n=6) rated FPPE as an effective and positive influence on patient outcomes, with an average rating of 2.23/5. Conclusions and relevance Originally intended as a quality improvement measure, FPPE and anonymous 360 reporting systems create a net decline in patient care and safety, leading to real patient harm. In addition, it is often uninfluenced by metrics such as morbidity and mortality, and many claims can be made without validity, leading to serious detriments to physician mental health, retention, and professional careers. Due to the extensive implementation of these processes across many institutions, further investigation is required to appropriately guide reform, and as such, we encourage all physicians to share their personal opinions on these systems and participate in this survey [19].

Indexed as

healthcare outcomeshealthcare quality and safetyhealthcare systemsleadership in healthcare management and assessment of quality indicators in healthcarepatient-centred care

Identifiers

PMID40895999
PMCPMC12396155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.