Frequency and Nature of Communication and Handoff Failures in Medical Malpractice Claims
Abstract
Background The Joint Commission has identified miscommunication as a leading cause of sentinel events, the most serious adverse events, but it is unclear what role miscommunications play in malpractice claims. We sought to determine the proportion of medical malpractice claims involving communication failure and describe their nature, including providers involved, locations, miscommunications types, costs, and the potential for handoff tools to avert risk and associated costs. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a random sample of malpractice claims from 2001 to 2011, collected in CRICO Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System, a national claims database. Two researchers reviewed cases to determine if a claim involved communication failure, its type, and potential preventability using a communication tool. Interrater reliability was assessed by dual review of 50 cases (81% agreement, κ = 0.62 for evidence of miscommunication). Claimant demographics, case characteristics, and financial data were analyzed. Results Communication failures were identified in 49% of claims. Claims with communication failures were significantly less likely to be dropped, denied, or dismissed than claims without (54% versus 67%, P = 0.015). Fifty-three percent of claims with communication failures involved provider-patient miscommunication, and 47% involved provider-provider miscommunication. The information types most frequently miscommunicated were contingency plans, diagnosis, and illness sever…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Incomplete or inaccurate handoffs are a source of subsequent medical errors and patient injury, particularly for patients undergoing major surgery.
“Incomplete or inaccurate handoffs are a source of subsequent medical errors and patient injury,1–3 particularly for patients undergoing major surgery.4–7”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
Cites
The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O'Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 · Cited by 24,013 · see citing works
Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program
Starmer, A. J., Spector, N. D., Srivastava, R., West, D. C., Rosenbluth, G., Allen, A. D., Noble, E. L., Tse, L. L., Dalal, A. K., Keohane, C. A., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1405556 · Cited by 947 · see citing works
Self-citationStarmer, A. J., Sectish, T. C., Simon, D. W., Keohane, C., McSweeney, M. E., Chung, E. Y., Yoon, C. S., Lipsitz, S. R., Wassner, A. J., Harper, M. B., et al. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281961 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Self-citationPaid Malpractice Claims for Adverse Events in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings
Bishop, T. F. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.813 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study
King, C. R., Shambe, A., & Abraham, J. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad015 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Humphrey, K. E., Sundberg, M., Milliren, C. E., Graham, D. A., & Landrigan, C. P.
- Affiliations
- Program for Patient Safety and Quality
- Emergency Medicine
- Institutional Centers for Clinical & Translational Research
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Humphrey, Kate E.
- Graham, Dionne A.
- Venue
- Journal of Patient Safety
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 130-137
- ISSN
- 1549-8417 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-8425
- OpenAlex
- W4200356561
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 10.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Patient Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
- Keywords
- malpractice claims, communication breakdown, handoff failure, patient handover, provider-patient communication, sentinel events, malpractice costs
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans, Malpractice, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Handoff
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