Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patients' and family members' views on how clinicians enact and how they should enact incident disclosure: the "100 patient stories" qualitative study

Open access
Iedema, R., Allen, S., Britton, K., Piper, D., Baker, A., Grbich, C., Allan, A., Jones, L., Tuckett, A., Williams, A., Manias, E., Gallagher, T. H.·2011·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.d4423
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' and family members' perceptions and experiences of disclosure of healthcare incidents and to derive principles of effective disclosure. DESIGN: Retrospective qualitative study based on 100 semi-structured, in depth interviews with patients and family members. SETTING: Nationwide multisite survey across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 39 patients and 80 family members who were involved in high severity healthcare incidents (leading to death, permanent disability, or long term harm) and incident disclosure. Recruitment was via national newspapers (43%), health services where the incidents occurred (28%), two internet marketing companies (27%), and consumer organisations (2%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' recurrent experiences and concerns expressed in interviews. RESULTS: Most patients and family members felt that the health service incident disclosure rarely met their needs and expectations. They expected better preparation for incident disclosure, more shared dialogue about what went wrong, more follow-up support, input into when the time was ripe for closure, and more information about subsequent improvement in process. This analysis provided the basis for the formulation of a set of principles of effective incident disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing prominence of open disclosure, discussion about healthcare incidents still falls short of patient and family member expectations. Healthcare organisations and providers should strengthen their efforts to meet patients' (and family members') needs and expectations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.d4423

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Iedema, R., Allen, S., Britton, K., Piper, D., Baker, A., Grbich, C., Allan, A., Jones, L., Tuckett, A., Williams, A., Manias, E., & Gallagher, T. H.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-07-25
Volume
343
Issue
jul25 1
Pages
d4423-d4423
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.d4423
OpenAlex
W2127957410
Cited by
306
References
20
FWCI
29.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Patients' and family members' views on how clinicians enact and how they should enact incident disclosure: the "100 patient stories" qualitative study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.d4423
The paper
Iedema, R., Allen, S., Britton, K., Piper, D., Baker, A., Grbich, C., Allan, A., Jones, L., Tuckett, A., Williams, A., Manias, E., & Gallagher, T. H. (2011). Patients' and family members' views on how clinicians enact and how they should enact incident disclosure: the "100 patient stories" qualitative study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4423

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.