PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jane M Garbutt

Publications and source records attributed to Jane M Garbutt.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Residents' perceptions of the effects of work hour limitations at a large teaching hospital.

PURPOSE: To assess residents' perceptions of the impact of resident work hour restrictions on patient care, education, and job satisfaction. METHOD: Four focus groups of internal medicine residents at Barnes-Jewish Hospital at the Washington University School of Medicine were conducted during February and March 2004. Twenty-six housestaff from the first three years of residency participated; all were volunteers. Transcripts were analyzed for major themes. RESULTS: Both residents and interns supported work hour limitations and enjoyed the benefits of working fewer hours. However, they had difficulty complying with the restrictions, particularly if they felt patient care, teaching, or their own education would be compromised. Participants perceived that restricted work hours diminished the continuity of patient care and increased the likelihood of medical errors such as those resulting from delayed follow-up of diagnostic tests. Both interns and residents found it difficult to attend conferences, and residents found fewer opportunities to teach. Effects on job satisfaction were mixed as a result of work hour restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Residents in the sample favored work hour restrictions but had serious concerns about the effects of the restrictions on patient care and medical education. The findings suggest that imposing rigid work hour restrictions has significant consequences for patient care and medical education and that the most effective ways to balance work hour limitations with the demands of patient care and necessary educational components to train competent physicians have yet to be identified.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

Safe prescribing: an educational intervention for medical students.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Errors in handwritten medication orders are common and can result in patient harm. We evaluated an intervention for increasing safe prescribing by medical students. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post evaluation to evaluate a brief educational intervention to increase safe prescribing by medical students. Two 1-hr, small-group, interactive educational sessions for 3rd-year medical students were held 2 weeks apart at Washington University in St. Louis. Prescribing errors were measured with a verbal transcription test. RESULTS: Twenty-eight students participated. Following the intervention, the average number of error-free orders in the 10-order test increased 5-fold from 0.82 per student to 4.54 per student, and the average number of errors and dangerous errors per student decreased from 13.96 to 7.36 (p < .0001) and from 4.75 to 2.68 (p < .0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After a brief interactive educational intervention for medical students, the frequency of error-free handwritten orders increased, and prescribing errors decreased. Additional training may be required to further improve and maintain safe prescribing.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

Safe medication prescribing: training and experience of medical students and housestaff at a large teaching hospital.

PURPOSE: To assess medical students' and housestaff's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding safe prescribing. METHOD: In 2003, 214 housestaff (interns and residents) and 77 medical students in medicine and surgery at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, were asked to complete an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire about safe prescribing. Questions asked about training in and attitudes about safe-prescribing and current prescribing behaviors. Fisher exact test was used to compare attitudes and behaviors among subgroups. RESULTS: Of the 175 (60%) respondents, 73 (59%) of 123 housestaff and eight (15%) of 52 students agreed that their safe-prescribing training was adequate (p < .001), and 145 (83%) total respondents agreed that prescribing errors were unacceptable. Respondents reported always doing the following: 156 (89%) checked prescribing information before prescribing new drugs, 131 (75%) checked for drug allergies, 103 (59%) double-checked dosage calculations, 98 (56%) checked for renal impairment, and 53 (30%) checked for potential drug-drug interactions. CONCLUSION: Routine use of safe medication prescribing behaviors among housestaff and medical students was poor. Contributing factors may have included inadequate training and a culture that does not support safe prescribing. Effective strategies to increase safe medication prescribing need to be identified and implemented.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

Choosing your words carefully: how physicians would disclose harmful medical errors to patients.

BACKGROUND: A gap exists between patients' desire to be told about medical errors and present practice. Little is known about how physicians approach disclosure. The objective of the present study was to describe how physicians disclose errors to patients. METHODS: Mailed survey of 2637 medical and surgical physicians in the United States (Missouri and Washington) and Canada (national sample). Participants received 1 of 4 scenarios depicting serious errors that varied by specialty (medical and surgical scenarios) and by how obvious the error would be to the patient if not disclosed (more apparent vs less apparent). Five questions measured what respondents would disclose using scripted statements. RESULTS: Wide variation existed regarding what information respondents would disclose. Of the respondents, 56% chose statements that mentioned the adverse event but not the error, while 42% would explicitly state that an error occurred. Some physicians disclosed little information: 19% would not volunteer any information about the error's cause, and 63% would not provide specific information about preventing future errors. Disclosure was affected by the nature of the error and physician specialty. Of the respondents, 51% who received the more apparent errors explicitly mentioned the error, compared with 32% who received the less apparent errors (P<.001); 58% of medical specialists explicitly mentioned the error, compared with 19% of surgical specialists (P<.001). Respondents disclosed more information if they had positive disclosure attitudes, felt responsible for the error, had prior positive disclosure experiences, and were Canadian. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians vary widely in how they would disclose errors to patients. Disclosure standards and training are necessary to meet public expectations and promote professional responsibility following errors.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

US and Canadian physicians' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients are often not told about harmful medical errors. The malpractice environment is considered a major determinant of physicians' willingness to disclose errors to patients. Yet, little is known about the malpractice environment's actual effect on physicians' error disclosure attitudes and experiences. METHODS: Mailed survey of 2637 physicians (62.9% response rate) in the United States (Missouri and Washington) and Canada, countries with different malpractice environments. RESULTS: Physicians' error disclosure attitudes and experiences were similar across country and specialty. Of the physicians, 64% agreed that errors are a serious problem. However, 50% disagreed that errors are usually caused by system failures. Ninety-eight percent endorsed disclosing serious errors to patients and 78% supported disclosing minor errors; 74% thought disclosing a serious error would be very difficult. Fifty-eight percent had disclosed a serious error to a patient, and 85% were satisfied with the disclosure, and 66% agreed that disclosing a serious error reduces malpractice risk. Respondents' estimates of the probability of lawsuits were not associated with their support for disclosure. The belief that disclosure makes patients less likely to sue (odds ratio, 1.58), not being in private practice (odds ratio, 1.47), being Canadian (odds ratio, 1.43), and being a surgeon (odds ratio, 1.26) were independently associated with higher support for disclosing serious errors. CONCLUSIONS: US and Canadian physicians' error disclosure attitudes and experiences are similar despite different malpractice environments, and reveal mixed feelings about disclosing errors to patients. The medical profession should address the barriers to transparency within the culture of medical and surgical specialties.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗