Cited by 72Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHospital Admissions and OutcomesMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues

Frequency and Nature of Communication and Handoff Failures in Medical Malpractice Claims

Humphrey, Kate E., Sundberg, Melissa, Milliren, Carly E., Graham, Dionne A., Landrigan, Christopher P.·2022·Journal of Patient Safety

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

Crossref · 10.1097/pts.0000000000000937

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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