Parent Preferences for Medical Error Disclosure: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: According to disclosure guidelines, patients experiencing adverse events due to medical errors should be offered full disclosure, whereas disclosure of near misses is not traditionally expected. This may conflict with parental expectations; surveys reveal most parents expect full disclosure whether errors resulted in harm or not. Protocols regarding whether to include children in these discussions have not been established. This study explores parent preferences around disclosure and views on including children. METHODS: Fifteen parents of hospitalized children participated in semistructured interviews. Three hypothetical scenarios of different severity were used to initiate discussion. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded for emergent themes. RESULTS: Parents uniformly wanted disclosure if harm occurred, although fewer wanted their child informed. For nonharmful errors, most parents wanted disclosure for themselves but few for their children.With respect to including children in disclosure, parents preferred to assess their children's cognitive and emotional readiness to cope with disclosure, wishing to act as a "buffer" between the health care team and their children. Generally, as event severity decreased, they felt that risks of informing children outweighed benefits. Parents strongly emphasized needing reassurance of a good final outcome and anticipated difficulty managing their emotions. CONCLUSIONS: Parents have mixed expectations regarding disclosure. Although survey studies indicate a stronger desire for disclosure of nonharmful events than for adult patients, this qualitative study revealed a greater degree of hesitation and complexity. Parents have a great need for reassurance and consistently wish to act as a buffer between the health care team and their children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".