Legal aspects of open disclosure II: Attitudes of health professionals - Findings from a national survey

Studdert, DM; Piper, D; Iedema, R

Legal aspects of open disclosure II: Attitudes of health professionals - Findings from a national survey

Studdert, DM Piper, D Iedema, R

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Medical Journal of Australia, 2010, 193 (6), pp. 351 - 355
Issue Date:: 2010-09-20

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (138.45 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Studdert, DM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Piper, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Iedema, R	en_US
dc.date.available	2010-05-31	en_US
dc.date.issued	2010-09-20	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Medical Journal of Australia, 2010, 193 (6), pp. 351 - 355	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0025-729X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/17566
dc.description.abstract	Objective: To assess the attitudes of health care professionals engaged in open disclosure (OD) to the legal risks and protections that surround this activity. Design and participants: National cross-sectional survey of 51 experienced OD practitioners conducted in mid 2009. Main outcome measures: Perceived barriers to OD; awareness of and attitudes towards medicolegal protections; recommendations for reform. Results: The vast majority of participants rated fears about the medicolegal risks (45/51) and inadequate education and training in OD skills (43/51) as major or moderate barriers to OD. A majority (30/51) of participants viewed qualified privilege laws as having limited or no effect on health professionals' willingness to conduct OD, whereas opinion was divided about the effect of apology laws (state laws protecting expressions of regret from subsequent use in legal proceedings). In four states and territories (Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory), a majority of participants were unaware that their own jurisdiction had apology laws that applied to OD. The most frequent recommendations for legal reform to improve OD were strengthening existing protections (23), improving education and awareness of applicable laws (11), fundamental reform of the medical negligence system (8), and better alignment of the activities of certain legal actors (eg, coroners) with OD practice (6). Conclusions: Concerns about both the medicolegal implications of OD and the skills needed to conduct it effectively are prevalent among health professionals at the leading edge of the OD movement in Australia. The ability of current laws to protect against use of this information in legal proceedings is perceived as inadequate.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Medical Journal of Australia	en_US
dc.subject.classification	General & Internal Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Attitude of Health Personnel	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Truth Disclosure	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.title	Legal aspects of open disclosure II: Attitudes of health professionals - Findings from a national survey	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	193	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences	en_US
dc.location.activity	ISI:000282565400010	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	6	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	193	en_US

Abstract:

Objective: To assess the attitudes of health care professionals engaged in open disclosure (OD) to the legal risks and protections that surround this activity. Design and participants: National cross-sectional survey of 51 experienced OD practitioners conducted in mid 2009. Main outcome measures: Perceived barriers to OD; awareness of and attitudes towards medicolegal protections; recommendations for reform. Results: The vast majority of participants rated fears about the medicolegal risks (45/51) and inadequate education and training in OD skills (43/51) as major or moderate barriers to OD. A majority (30/51) of participants viewed qualified privilege laws as having limited or no effect on health professionals' willingness to conduct OD, whereas opinion was divided about the effect of apology laws (state laws protecting expressions of regret from subsequent use in legal proceedings). In four states and territories (Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory), a majority of participants were unaware that their own jurisdiction had apology laws that applied to OD. The most frequent recommendations for legal reform to improve OD were strengthening existing protections (23), improving education and awareness of applicable laws (11), fundamental reform of the medical negligence system (8), and better alignment of the activities of certain legal actors (eg, coroners) with OD practice (6). Conclusions: Concerns about both the medicolegal implications of OD and the skills needed to conduct it effectively are prevalent among health professionals at the leading edge of the OD movement in Australia. The ability of current laws to protect against use of this information in legal proceedings is perceived as inadequate.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/17566