Apology marks new era in response to medical error, hospital says
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Hamilton hospital says the apology it issued in the wake of a girl's death is another corner turned in a medical culture that has been loathe to admit error, but the child's family remains unsatisfied. The apology, issued by the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre following the death of 11-year-old Claire Lewis, stated: “We have identified serious care and system issues and have concluded that her death could have been avoided. For that, we offer our profound apologies. “We are in the process of implementing a number of changes that will prevent a similar tragedy. Our commitment to you, to Claire's memory, is to follow through on every recommendation in the report [concerning the incident]. We again apologize for the length of time it has taken our hospital to conduct this review and we realize that delay has added to your grief.” The girl underwent surgery at the Hamilton General Hospital Oct. 12, 2001, to remove a benign pituitary gland tumour. The operation was successful and she was transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit at McMaster University Medical Centre. By late afternoon on Oct. 14 her father John, a registered nurse, thought his daughter was exhibiting symptoms of increased intracranial pressure. A resident who assessed her did not take immediate action, and at 7:30 pm she stopped breathing and was intubated. She was pronounced brain dead the following morning. Six months later, Hamilton Health Sciences, which operates both the General and McMaster hospitals, issued the results of its investigation into the death and its apology. The hospital noted that intervention even 30 minutes before she stopped breathing “could have resulted in a different outcome for Claire.” The Lewis family, which is pursuing a lawsuit, remains unsatisfied. “There's an issue of personal accountability and responsibility in this death, i.e. physicians,” John Lewis says. “I use the analogy of the drunk driver killing your child with his car and having the insurance company apologize to you — there's really no gratification in it. Personal accountability and responsibility is nowhere in the system.” However, Dr. Andrew McCallum, chief of staff at Hamilton Health Sciences, believes the hospital's apology marks a clear change in direction. “The general feeling is that it's the right thing to do,” he said. “... Sometimes, it's better to say, ‘You know what, there were things that happened here that we should be accountable for. Let’s disclose and let's take responsibility.' ” He also believes a similar change is taking place in the legal community. “In the past, all claims were vigorously defended. Now, there's more of a trend toward saying, ‘OK, this is a meritorious action. Let’s work toward negotiating an appropriate settlement rather than being adversarial about it.' ” David U, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada, says attitudes toward error disclosure are changing “a little bit.” He lauded staff at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa for prompt action following a recent adverse drug event (ADE). Four-year-old Ryan Lucio died last September after the wrong data were printed on some medication orders. (He was receiving interleukin II in a clinical trial.) After the ADE, the hospital alerted the families involved in the trial and other institutions participating in it before the boy had even died. “Organizations like ours have been advocating and promoting a good, nonpunitive way to handle medical errors because the ultimate goal is to discover and reveal the problems and then address the underlying issues,” U said. “If you have a culture that covers it up, then the same things happen and no one knows.” Murray Martin, president and CEO of Hamilton Health Sciences, says the apology “was the right thing to do within the context of our values as an organization. “If we [are] to do something about medical error, we have to be able to talk openly in order to change processes and make sure [the mistakes] don't happen again.” Martin says that when cases move to litigation “the only real winners are the lawyers.” — Ken Kilpatrick, Hamilton
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,116 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».