The DOI matches its Crossref record.
US and Canadian Physicians' Attitudes and Experiences Regarding Disclosing Errors to Patients
Abstract
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.
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
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
Self-citationDisclosing Harmful Medical Errors to Patients
Gallagher, T. H., Studdert, D., & Levinson, W. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra070568 · Cited by 405
Self-citationIedema, R., Allen, S., Britton, K., Piper, D., Baker, A., Grbich, C., Allan, A., Jones, L., Tuckett, A., Williams, A., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4423 · Cited by 306
Self-citationBell, S. K., White, A. A., Yi, J. C., Yi-Frazier, J. P., & Gallagher, T. H. (2017) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000153 · Cited by 52
Self-citationOpen Disclosure of Adverse Events: Transparency and Safety in Health Care
Eaves-Leanos, A., & Dunn, E. J. (2012) · Surgical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.suc.2011.11.001 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Gallagher, T. H., Waterman, A. D., Garbutt, J. M., Kapp, J. M., Chan, D. K., Dunagan, W. C., Fraser, V. J., & Levinson, W.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2006-08-14
- Volume
- 166
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1605
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1990940537
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.35
- 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: US and Canadian Physicians' Attitudes and Experiences Regarding Disclosing Errors to Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.166.15.1605
- The paper
- Gallagher, T. H., Waterman, A. D., Garbutt, J. M., Kapp, J. M., Chan, D. K., Dunagan, W. C., Fraser, V. J., & Levinson, W. (2006). US and Canadian Physicians' Attitudes and Experiences Regarding Disclosing Errors to Patients. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.15.1605
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.