Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/9447
Title: Response to M.-J. Johnstone "Clinical risk management and the ethics of open disclosure. Part 1. Benefits and risks to patient safety" [Aust. Emerg. Nurs. J. 11 (2008) 88-94]
Contributor(s): Tuckett, Anthony (author); Iedema, Rick (author); Mallock, Nadine (author); Sorensen, Ros (author); Manias, Elizabeth (author); Williams, Allison (author); Piper, Donella  (author)orcid 
Publication Date: 2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.aenj.2008.06.002
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/9447
Abstract: We are grateful for Megan-Jane Johnstone making a broader readership aware of the open disclosure process. Whilst hindsight is a wonderful thing, we nevertheless take this opportunity to respond to a number of her propositions, if only to bridge the gap between conjecture and what is now rapidly becoming reality. Prior to the introduction when describing what open disclosure is, Johnstone does alert the reader quite rightly to the fact that the open disclosure standard has been piloted nationally. At the time of her writing, a final report on the outcomes of the pilot project was submitted to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. It is worthwhile to signal the publication of this report, to prepare the reader for the opportunity to temper opinion with fact (see Ref. 1; Final report A National Evaluation of the Open Disclosure Pilot at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/PriorityProgram-02_PilotNODstd). As that report clarifies (also see Ref. 2), the primary method of data collection was the interview. The total number of interviews conducted was 154. Of these, 131 were conducted with health professionals (24 NSW, 29 SA, 33 VIC, and 68 QLD) and 15 were conducted with patients and 8 with (unrelated to these patients except one) family members. All interview sessions were audio-taped and transcribed, resulting in just under 2000 pages of data. Within the limits of the patient group sample size, we believe that this is in fact the robust empirical research Johnstone demands. More importantly, the report demonstrates the benefits of open disclosure to those concerned.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal, 11(4), p. 189-191
Publisher: Elsevier Ltd
Place of Publication: United Kingdom
ISSN: 1574-6267
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 111709 Health Care Administration
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: 920208 Health Policy Evaluation
HERDC Category Description: C4 Letter of Note
Publisher/associated links: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/PriorityProgram-02_PilotNODstd
Appears in Collections:Journal Article

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record

Page view(s)

1,000
checked on Mar 7, 2023
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.