The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disclosure of patient safety incidents: a comprehensive review
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adverse events are increasingly recognized as a source of harm to patients. When such harm occurs, problems arise in communicating the situation to patients and their families. We reviewed the literature on disclosure across individual and international boundaries, including patients', healthcare professionals' and other stakeholders' perspectives in order to ascertain how the needs of all groups could be better reconciled. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the literature was carried out using the search terms 'patient safety', 'medical error', 'communication', 'clinicians', 'healthcare professionals' and 'disclosure'. All articles relating to either patients' or healthcare professionals' experiences or attitudes toward disclosure were included. RESULTS: Both patients and healthcare professionals support the disclosure of adverse events to patients and their families. Patients have specific requirements including frank and timely disclosure, an apology where appropriate and assurances about their future care. However, research suggests that there is a gap between ideal disclosure practice and reality. Although healthcare is delivered by multidisciplinary teams, much of the research that has been conducted has focused on physicians' experiences. Research indicates that other healthcare professionals also have a role to play in the disclosure process and this should be reflected in disclosure policies. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review, which takes account of the perspectives of the patient and members of the care team across multiple jurisdictions, suggests that disclosure practice can be improved by strengthening policy and supporting healthcare professionals in disclosing adverse events. Increased openness and honesty following adverse events can improve provider-patient relationships.
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
Cites
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
Do House Officers Learn From Their Mistakes?
Wu, A. W. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460160067031 · Cited by 565
Self-citation
Cited by
Iedema, 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
Archer, S., Hull, L., Soukup, T., Mayer, E., Athanasiou, T., Sevdalis, N., & Darzi, A. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017155 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Connor, E., Coates, H. M., Yardley, I. E., & Wu, A. W.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-08-13
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 371-379
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2151417645
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.42
- 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: Disclosure of patient safety incidents: a comprehensive review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/intqhc/mzq042
- The paper
- O'Connor, E., Coates, H. M., Yardley, I. E., & Wu, A. W. (2010). Disclosure of patient safety incidents: a comprehensive review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzq042
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.