21 of 23

Write now Article Tools

Better reporting of hospital errors would be useful for two main reasons. First, it would be a start towards correcting those errors. Secondly, it's information some patients would like to know and they certainly have that right.

In her article in the St. Louis Beacon, Joan Little decries the fact that Missouri makes little information available regarding the number and type of hospital errors that occur, while nearby Minnesota does. She's right to complain. This information is collected and every patient should have the right to know about it. Keeping this information under wraps is exactly the type of action that causes many to regard the medical profession as a form of latter day priesthood.

Hospital errors are inevitable. Even the poorly named "never events," such as operating on the wrong patient or body part, are bound to occur if enough medical procedures are performed. It's said that if enough monkeys typed long enough at their keyboards, they would eventually duplicate a work of Shakespeare's. Or at least Garrison Keillor's. It's the same with "never events." The idea is to limit them as much as possible. The first step in doing this is to be aware of their occurrence and frequency. It's true that medical professionals are probably better than outsiders at interpreting this information; they should be given the chance. That starts with them seeing the information. If it's known that patient infection rates at a hospital are higher than normal, it should cause doctors and nurses to pay more attention to issues such as hand washing and sterilization. High levels of "never events" could similarly cause the institution of checklists and other procedures designed to limit their occurrence. You have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is realizing that a problem does exist.

The issue here is not punishment or retribution; it's attempting to fix what isn't working. It will be much better for the medical profession if they set up their own standards for reporting these events. If they don't, they may be faced with government directives doing so, which may have a somewhat different agenda.

The information should be a matter of public record. Perhaps patients and their caregivers will be able to utilize the information in their decision making; perhaps they will find the information too difficult to understand. It really doesn't matter. It's no different than information on medical procedures. An elderly prostate cancer patient may be given a choice of hormonal treatment, implantation of radioactive seeds, more passive treatment or no treatment at all (many will eventually die from some other cause if the cancer is not treated). Do all of them understand the choices? No. Some do and all are entitled to evaluate the pertinent information. If they feel incapable of choosing, they can defer to the judgment of their physician(s). It's the same with reporting of hospital errors. This may cause patients to gravitate towards or away from specific hospitals or may be totally incomprehensible to them. Regardless, they have a right to that information.

It's understandable that hospitals want to avoid publicizing their errors, particularly the most grievous ones. You probably don't put your worst errors in judgment down on your resume either. In the long run, it's best for all involved to have a clear record of these errors. That way, medical professionals, not government bureaucrats or profit driven business entities can deal with finding the sources of these errors and correcting them. And patients will have the opportunity to see if a hospital seems to be performing unusually well or poorly. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than pretending that the situation doesn't exist.

Learn more about this author, Neil Wagner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Hospital errors: What the patient doesn't know might hurt?
We want to hear your view. Write now!