MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402007426 · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11457-3

Beyond medical errors: exploring the interpersonal dynamics in physician-patient relationships linked to medico-legal complaints

2024· article· en· W4402007426 on OpenAlex
Mehrnaz Mostafapour, Jeffrey D. Smith, Jacqueline H. Fortier, Gary Garber

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaCanadian Medical Protective Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth administrationMedicineHealth informaticsNursing researchPublic healthInterpersonal communicationPain medicineLegal psychologyFamily medicineNursingPsychiatrySocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that medico-legal complaints often arise from various factors influencing patient dissatisfaction, including medical errors, physician-patient relationships, communication, trust, informed consent, perceived quality of care, and continuity of care. However, these findings are not typically derived from actual patients' cases. This study aims to identify factors impacting the interpersonal dynamics between physicians and patients using real patient cases to understand how patients perceive doctor-patient relational problems that can lead to dissatisfaction and subsequent medico-legal complaints. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using data from closed medical regulatory authority complaint cases from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. The study population included patients who experienced sepsis and survived, with complaints written by the patients themselves. A multi-stage standardized thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke's approach was employed. Two researchers independently coded the files to ensure the reliability of the identified codes and themes. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of 50 patient cases revealed four broad themes: (1) Ethics in physician's work, (2) Quality of care, (3) Communication, and (4) Healthcare system/policy impacting patient satisfaction. Key sub-themes included confidentiality, honesty, patient involvement, perceived negligence, perceived lack of concern, active engagement and empathy, transparency and clarity, informed consent, respect and demeanor, lack of resources, long wait times, and insufficient time with physicians. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies and categorizes various factors impacting relational issues between physicians and patients, aiming to increase patient satisfaction and reduce medico-legal cases. Improving physicians' skills in areas such as communication, ethical practices, and patient involvement, as well as addressing systemic problems like long wait times, can enhance the quality of care and reduce medico-legal complaints. Additional training in communication and other skills may help promote stronger relationships between physicians and patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it