Communication StudyApologies following an adverse medical event: The importance of focusing on the consumer's needs
Introduction
Many countries require health practitioners (practitioners) to disclose unforeseen adverse events or medical errors (errors) they make (for a review of the literature see [1], [2]). These disclosure policies can be justified with reference to practical reasons (for a discussion see, e.g., [3]), ethical obligations [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and pragmatic benefits [12], but most importantly because patients and their families (consumers) expect practitioners to disclose [13], [14], [15], [16], and apologise for errors [1], [17], [18], [19].
Many practitioners support the disclosure of errors [11], [17], [20], [21], but some remain reluctant to disclose errors for several reasons, including uncertainty about how to disclose and apologise in an appropriate manner [21]. Educators could address this problem by training practitioners how to do so [1], [15], [21], [22], but they lack a theoretical framework of apology and empirically based guidance on what constitutes an appropriate disclosure and apology after an error [23]. Recent research revealed the complexity of apologies and that they vary according to circumstances, but there appears to be a growing agreement that an apology should incorporate an admission of wrongdoing, an expression of regret and restorative behaviour [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Researchers [26], [28], [31] further submit that for apologies to be effective their components must address the needs of consumers. Slocum et al. [31] used these components, which they refer to as Affirmation, Affect, and Action, to develop the multi-dimensional theory of apology.
Slocum et al. [31] visualise these components on a continuum where, at one end, apologisers focus exclusively on their own needs (self-focus) and, at the other end, recognise the needs of consumers (other-focus). As Fig. 1 illustrates the self-focus dimension of the Affirmation component requires at least an admission of responsibility (e.g., I accidentally made a small nick to your bowel) and acquires an other-focus when it incorporates an acknowledgement of the consequences of the wrong on the victim (e.g., this mistake could have led to serious infection and illness). The Regret element of the Affect component reflects a self-focus (e.g., I am sorry about this), whilst apologisers demonstrate an other-focus (Remorse) by displaying sorrow for the suffering they caused the other (e.g., I feel badly about the discomfort this has meant for you and the potential risks of the situation you were put in). Apologisers demonstrate the self-focus dimension (Restitution) of the Action component if they offer to reverse the tangible consequences (e.g., You will not be billed for the surgical procedure), but they demonstrate an other-focus (Reparation) if they attempt to address the intangible needs of consumers (e.g., I am going to review the way I do this procedure to make sure this does not happen again).
People's inherent self-centredness makes it inevitable that all apologies will be self-focused. Apologies can range from complex to basic with the most basic apology having at least one self-focused element, but it could have two, e.g., the apology I am sorry I accidentally made a small nick to your bowel contains the Regret and Admission elements. A complex apology would consist of all self-focused and other-focused elements such as: I accidentally made a small nick to your bowel, this mistake could have led to serious infection and illness. I am sorry that I caused you pain and discomfort and exposed you to the potential risks of infection. You will not be billed for the surgical procedure and I am going to review the way I do this procedure to make sure this does not happen again. It is also possible that an apology could have any combination of self-focused and other-focused elements.
Slocum et al. [31] proposed that the inclusion of other-focused elements may enhance the effectiveness of an apology. As the multidimensional theory of apology could serve as a framework for educators guiding practitioners how to disclose and apologise for errors, our aim was to determine whether participants reacted differently to different presentations of an apology. The specific research question was whether adding other-focused apology components (Acknowledgement, Remorse, Reparation) to a basic (self- focused only) apology would influence participants’:
- 1.
Assessment of the apologiser;
- 2.
Perception of the sufficiency of an apology;
- 3.
Perception of the sincerity of an apology;
- 4.
Judgement of how sorry the apologiser is;
- 5.
Forgiveness of the apologiser; and
- 6.
Behavioural intentions towards the apologiser.
Section snippets
Participants
We recruited 251 community members from the metropolitan area of Perth, Western Australia (primarily by distributing flyers and putting up notices in various settings such as libraries, universities and social clubs) but deleted 4 participants’ data because of aberrant or missing responses. The remaining 247 participants ranged in age from 17 to 87 years (M = 48.55 years, SD = 24.40 years) and 101 males and 144 females indicated their gender.
Materials
We produced videos of the same two professional male
Results
Mean scores on the outcome variables for the Basic and Complex apologies are displayed in Table 2. Assessments of the surgeon (apologiser) were, in general, marginally favourable in both the Complex Apology and the Basic Apology scenarios. The mean scores for apology sufficiency and sincerity, the apologiser's sorriness and the likelihood that the apologiser would be forgiven were all higher (more positive) than the midpoint (3) of the rating scales. The highest scores occurred for sorriness
Discussion
Participants considered both the Basic Apology and the Complex Apology (which had a self and other-focus), and the apologisers offering them, more positively than negatively. Participants’ positive reaction to the Basic Apology suggests that even an imperfect apology may be effective, but we concede that most people would consider the Basic Apology as good and the finding may reflect people's tendency to accept apologies (see, e.g., [40]).
Participants reported a low level of intent to pursue
Patient details
We confirm all patient/personal identifiers have been removed or disguised so the patient/person(s) described are not identifiable and cannot be identified through the details of the story.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Funding
The project was funded with an Edith Cowan University-Industry Collaboration Scheme with the Western Australian Department of Health. The Department of Health had no involvement in the project other than contributing to the grant.
Acknowledgements
We thank Kirsty Freeman and Christopher Churchouse who assisted with the production of the videos and our research assistants Nicole Macdonald and Judith Evans.
References (52)
- et al.
When apologies work: how matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process
(2010) - et al.
Apology versus defence: antecedents and consequences
J Exp Soc Psychol
(2003) - et al.
More than words: patients’ views on apology and disclosure when things go wrong in cancer care
Patient Educ Couns
(2013) Age differences in forgivingness: the role of future time perspective
J Res Personal
(2008)- et al.
Age differences in forgivingness: the role of transgression frequency and intensity
J Res Personal
(2011) - et al.
An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness
Personal Individ Differ
(2011) - et al.
Explanations: what factors enhance their perceived adequacy and moderate their enhancement of justice perceptions
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process
(1994) - et al.
Practising open disclosure: clinical incident communication and systems improvement
Sociol Health Illn
(2009) - et al.
Disclosing harmful medical errors to patients: current concepts
N Engl J Med
(2007) Disclosing medical errors to patients
Ear Nose Throat J
(2006)
Avoiding cheap grace
Hastings Cent Rep
Patient Safety: Ethical Considerations in Policy Development
The healing forces of apology in medical practice and beyond
DePaul Law Rev
Ethical, professional and legal regulation of medical practice
J Law Med
American college of physicians ethics manual: sixth edition
Ann Intern Med
Bioethics for clinicians: 23. Disclosure of medical error
CMAJ
Disclosure of adverse events and errors in healthcare: an ethical perspective
Drug Saf
A study of the ethical duty of physicians to disclose errors
J Clin Ethics
A 30-month study of patient complaints at a major Australian hospital
J Qual Clin Pract
Patient perspectives of patient-provider communication after adverse events
Int J Qual Health Care
The 100 patient stories’ project: patient and family member views on how clinicians (should) enact open disclosure – a qualitative study
Br Med J
Medical errors – what and when what do patients want
Acad Emerg Med
Health plan members’ views about disclosure of medical errors
Ann Intern Med
The national open disclosure pilot: evaluation of a policy implementation initiative
Med J Aust
Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors
J Am Med Assoc
Legislating apology: the pros and cons
Cincinnati Law Rev
Cited by (10)
Physician gender and apologies in clinical interactions
2018, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :When delivering an apology, physicians can vary the use and intensity of these strategies and therefore frame or tone the apology in a way they believe will be successful. Specifically, a physician may choose to frame their apology as “cognitive” (i.e., focused on the process that led to the error and the steps to correct it) or “affective” (i.e., focused on the patient’s emotions and well-being) [15,16]. A cognitively framed apology is more systematic and information-based.
Virtual reality evidence on the impact of physicians' open versus defensive communication on patients
2023, Health Economics, Policy and LawThe impact of voluntariness of apologies on victims’ responses in restorative justice: findings of a quantitative study
2022, Psychiatry, Psychology and LawDisclosing Adverse Events in Clinical Practice: The Delicate Act of Being Open
2022, Health CommunicationThe potential for inadvertent adverse consequences of open disclosure in Australia: when good intentions cause further harm
2019, Medicine, Science and the Law