The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The emotional impact of mistakes on family physicians
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the emotional impact of the most memorable mistake on family physicians, the support they needed and received, and their response to a hypothetical scenario in which a colleague's decision was associated with a fatal outcome. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected members of a county chapter of a midwestern state academy of family physicians. DESIGN: Qualitative cross-sectional survey using in-depth interviews subject to content analysis. METHODS: I audiotaped interviews with each of the physicians in their offices. Two medical sociologists and I first independently, and then consensually, categorized the data based on the frequency with which a word or idea appeared in the text. RESULTS: Thirty (75 %) of the 40 physicians originally contacted participated in the study. Twenty-three (77%) of the 30 physicians admitted to making a mistake. The physicians experienced emotional adversity. Of 27 physicians, 17 (63%) needed someone to talk to, 13 (48 %) needed to review their case management, 16 (59%) needed professional reaffirmation, and eight (30%) needed personal reassurance. Having someone to talk to was the support that 12 (44%) of the 27 physicians valued most. Eighteen (67%) of 27 received this support from someone other than their peers. Although all subjects recognized their colleague's pain and need for support in the hypothetical scenario, only nine (32%) of 28 physicians would have unconditionally offered support. CONCLUSION: Making mistakes unfavorably affects family physicians and creates a strong need for support. Family physicians may benefit from sharing experiences that diminish perfectionism and recognize mistakes as a natural part of practicing medicine. Further research needs to address how physicians can be encouraged toward therapeutic self-disclosure and peer support.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
West, C. P., Huschka, M. M., Novotny, P. J., Sloan, J. A., Kolars, J. C., Habermann, T. M., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.9.1071 · Cited by 1,454
Impact of Extended-Duration Shifts on Medical Errors, Adverse Events, and Attentional Failures
Barger, L. K., Ayas, N. T., Cade, B. E., Cronin, J. W., Rosner, B., Speizer, F. E., & Czeisler, C. A. (2006) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030487 · Cited by 533
Health Care Professionals as Second Victims after Adverse Events: A Systematic Review
Seys, D., Wu, A. W., Gerven, E. V., Vleugels, A., Euwema, M., Panella, M., Scott, S. D., Conway, J., Sermeus, W., & Vanhaecht, K. (2013) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278712458918 · Cited by 517
The Emotional Impact of Medical Errors on Practicing Physicians in the United States and Canada
Waterman, A. D., Garbutt, J., Hazel, E., Dunagan, W. C., Levinson, W., Fraser, V. J., & Gallagher, T. H. (2007) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33050-x · Cited by 486
Medical error: the second victim
Wu, A. W. (2000) · Western Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1136/ewjm.172.6.358 · Cited by 477
Metadata
- Authors
- Newman, M. C.
- Venue
- Archives of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- CLOCKSS Archive
- Published
- 1996-02-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 71-75
- ISSN
- 1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965751135
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The emotional impact of mistakes on family physicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archfami.5.2.71
- The paper
- Newman, M. C. (1996). The emotional impact of mistakes on family physicians. Archives of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.5.2.71
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.