Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The struggle against perceived negligence. A qualitative study of patients’ experiences of adverse events in Norwegian hospitals

Authors: Gunn Hågensen, Gudrun Nilsen, Grete Mehus, Nils Henriksen

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Every year, 14 % of patients in Norwegian hospitals experience adverse events, which often have health-damaging consequences. The government, hospital management and health personnel attempt to minimize such events. Limited research on the first-hand experience of the patients affected is available. The aim of this study is to present patients’ perspectives of the occurrence of, disclosure of, and healthcare organizations’ responses to adverse events. Findings are discussed within a social constructivist framework and with reference to principles of open disclosure policy.

Methods

This qualitative study with an explorative descriptive design included fifteen in-depth interviews with former patients recruited by the Health and Social Services ombudsmen in the two northernmost counties of Norway. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) experience of adverse events in connection with surgical, orthopedic or medical treatment in general hospitals; 2) men and women; 3) aged 20–70; and 4) a minimum of one year since the event occurred. Transcribed audio-recorded interviews were analyzed through qualitative content analysis.

Results

The analysis revealed three main topics regarding patients’ experiences of adverse events: 1) ignored concerns or signs of complications; 2) lack of responsibility and error correction; and 3) lack of support, loyalty and learning opportunities. Patients had to struggle to demonstrate the error that had occurred and to receive the necessary treatment and monitoring in the aftermath of the events.

Conclusions

Patient narratives reveal a lack of openness, care and responsibility in connection with adverse events. Conflicting power structures, attitudes and established procedures may inhibit prevention, learning and patient safety work in spite of major efforts and good intentions. Attitudes in day-to-day patient care and organizational procedures should be challenged to invite patients into open disclosure processes and include them in health and safety work to a greater extent. The study’s small sample of self-selected participants limits the generalizability of the findings, and future studies should include a larger number of patients as well as professional perspectives.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Frank A. Experiencing illness through storytelling. In: Toombs SK, editor. Handbook of phenomenology and medicine. Dordrecht: Springer; 2001. p. 229–45.CrossRef Frank A. Experiencing illness through storytelling. In: Toombs SK, editor. Handbook of phenomenology and medicine. Dordrecht: Springer; 2001. p. 229–45.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
15.
go back to reference Ocloo J. Broadening the patient safety movement: listening, involving and learning from patients and the public. In: Rowley E, Waring J, editors. A socio-cultural perspective on patient safety. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2011. p. 29–48. Ocloo J. Broadening the patient safety movement: listening, involving and learning from patients and the public. In: Rowley E, Waring J, editors. A socio-cultural perspective on patient safety. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2011. p. 29–48.
17.
go back to reference Phillips-Bute B. Transparency and disclosure of medical errors: it’s the right thing to do, so why the reluctance? (the virtuous lawyer: seeking justice & the common good). Campbell Law Rev. 2013;35:333–54. Phillips-Bute B. Transparency and disclosure of medical errors: it’s the right thing to do, so why the reluctance? (the virtuous lawyer: seeking justice & the common good). Campbell Law Rev. 2013;35:333–54.
20.
go back to reference Rowley E, Waring J. A socio-cultural perspective on patient safety. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2011. Rowley E, Waring J. A socio-cultural perspective on patient safety. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2011.
27.
go back to reference Foucault M. L òrdre du Discours. (Norwegian). Spartacus Forlag A/S: Oslo; 1999. Foucault M. L òrdre du Discours. (Norwegian). Spartacus Forlag A/S: Oslo; 1999.
28.
go back to reference Flyvbjerg B. Rationalitet og magt : 1. Det konkretes videnskab. (Danish). Akademisk Forlag: Copenhagen; 1991. Flyvbjerg B. Rationalitet og magt : 1. Det konkretes videnskab. (Danish). Akademisk Forlag: Copenhagen; 1991.
29.
go back to reference Mik-Meyer N, Villadsen K. Magtens former: sociologiske perspektiver på Statens møde Med borgeren. (Danish). Reitzel: Copenhagen; 2007. Mik-Meyer N, Villadsen K. Magtens former: sociologiske perspektiver på Statens møde Med borgeren. (Danish). Reitzel: Copenhagen; 2007.
30.
go back to reference Thomassen M. Vitenskap, kunnskap og praksis : innføring i vitenskapsfilosofi for helse- og sosialfag. (Norwegian). Gyldendal akademisk: Oslo; 2006. Thomassen M. Vitenskap, kunnskap og praksis : innføring i vitenskapsfilosofi for helse- og sosialfag. (Norwegian). Gyldendal akademisk: Oslo; 2006.
31.
go back to reference Berger PL, Luckmann T. Den samfunnsskapte virkelighet. (Norwegian). Fagbokforl: Bergen; 2000. Berger PL, Luckmann T. Den samfunnsskapte virkelighet. (Norwegian). Fagbokforl: Bergen; 2000.
32.
go back to reference Goffman E. Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1974. Goffman E. Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1974.
34.
go back to reference Malterud K. Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning. (Norwegian). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2011. Malterud K. Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning. (Norwegian). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2011.
35.
go back to reference Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.
36.
go back to reference Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
41.
go back to reference Gadamer HG. Sannhet og metode. Grunntrekk i filosofisk hermeneutikk. (Norwegian). In: Oslo: pax Forlag AS; 2010. Gadamer HG. Sannhet og metode. Grunntrekk i filosofisk hermeneutikk. (Norwegian). In: Oslo: pax Forlag AS; 2010.
45.
go back to reference Sharpe VA, Faden AI. Medical harm: historical, conceptual, and ethical dimensions of iatrogenic illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef Sharpe VA, Faden AI. Medical harm: historical, conceptual, and ethical dimensions of iatrogenic illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1978. Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1978.
Metadata
Title
The struggle against perceived negligence. A qualitative study of patients’ experiences of adverse events in Norwegian hospitals
Authors
Gunn Hågensen
Gudrun Nilsen
Grete Mehus
Nils Henriksen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3101-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue