Learning from Our Mistakes: Quality Grand Rounds, a New Case-Based Series on Medical Errors and Patient Safety
Authors: Robert M. Wachter, Kaveh G. Shojania, Sanjay Saint, Amy J. Markowitz, Mark Smith
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2002)

Editorials4 June 2002Learning from Our Mistakes: Quality Grand Rounds, a New Case-Based Series on Medical Errors and Patient SafetyFREERobert M. Wachter, MD, Kaveh G. Shojania, MD, Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, Amy J. Markowitz, JD, and Mark Smith, MD, MBARobert M. Wachter, MD, Kaveh G. Shojania, MD, Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, Amy J. Markowitz, JD, and Mark Smith, MD, MBAAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-11-200206040-00015 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The case presentation has long been revered as an educational tool for physicians. Beginning early in medical school, many students eagerly devour the case presentations (often called “clinical-pathologic conferences,” or CPCs) in major medical journals, admiring both the marvelous complexity of the clinical details and the virtuoso performances of the invited discussants (1).Over the past 20 years, the case presentation and discussion method has become more varied and nuanced. In “clinical problem-solving” exercises, cases were presented to expert discussants in “aliquots,” giving learners a chance to observe the experts' reasoning process (2). This format, as well as the incorporation of patients' and providers' perspectives into case protocols in two recent series (3, 4), has expanded the scope and utility of case presentations in medical education. These changes dovetailed nicely with a trend in many medical schools to replace lectures with case-based learning (5).Case-based learning can be tremendously instructive and stimulating but can also carry a subtle educational threat. By emphasizing the “great case” (usually the more unusual and complex the case, the better) and the remarkable reasoning abilities of the master clinician, learners may assimilate the seductive but unrealistic message that a physician's individual knowledge and skill play the dominant role in determining patient outcomes. The patient safety corollary to this message is that poor outcomes primarily reflect deficiencies in the physician's knowledge base or cognitive and technical abilities. This unrealistic expectation of perfection undoubtedly contributes to physicians' traditional reluctance to discuss errors (6) and tends to distort these discussions when they do occur, such as in the morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences held in many hospitals.Although designed to provide a setting in which mistakes can be discussed openly and honestly, most M&M conferences follow one of two paths, neither of which optimally promotes the goal of learning from errors. The conference either gradually but inexorably mutates into a CPC-like great case conference, or an error is presented followed by the excoriation of an individual physician for his or her failings (more common in the surgical specialties and popularized by many television and movie productions). As our understanding of patient safety and error reduction has matured, we now realize that, although the M&M-cum-CPC conference simply sidesteps the consideration of errors, the “find-and-punish-the-bad-apple” approach may be equally unproductive in efforts to decrease errors that harm patients (7, 8).Catalyzed by the 1999 Institute of Medicine report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, the medical system recently began to respond to the tremendous public outrage over medical errors (9). Many of the responses focused on reporting systems and other methods of gathering data about the problem (10, 11). Several important articles, monographs, and books highlighted some of the key issues in patient safety and the conceptual underpinnings of quality improvement, often drawn from industries unrelated to health care, such as aviation and nuclear power (12, 13). However, for reasons that include liability issues and a medical culture that has discouraged open discussion of mistakes, the power of the individual case presentation, so important in the physician's clinical medicine education, has not been harnessed to educate providers about medical errors.In this issue, Annals launches a new series, “Quality Grand Rounds.” In it, we present articles and companion conferences in a format similar to that of clinical problem-solving cases. Each article describes an actual case involving a medical error or quality issue but does not identify the patient, providers, or institution. Although much of the case material is clinical (that is, drawn from the medical record), in a few cases, the involved institutions allowed us (the series editors) to observe their internal fact-finding and problem-solving process, known as “root-cause analysis.” In addition, we often interviewed key participants (including the patient, doctor, nurse, or risk manager) to be sure we could convey a full understanding of the events. Parts of these interviews are included in several of the case presentations in Annals, and additional information can be found accompanying the on-line version of the articles. Each case was presented to the discussants in a conference format (Quality Grand Rounds), and the manuscripts were revised to reflect the issues raised at the conferences—including those discussed during the question-and-answer sessions.In contrast to traditional CPCs, in which the discussant focuses on diagnosing the disease based on the patient's presenting symptoms, the focus in Quality Grand Rounds is on diagnosing the systems problems that led to a serious error or adverse outcome for the patient. Our discussants, who are national experts in the relevant patient safety and quality issues, help the reader understand the cause of the errors, frame them in the context of what we know about patient safety, and suggest ways of decreasing the risk to future patients of similar errors. Throughout the series, discussants emphasize not only individual errors but also system failings that allowed the inevitable human fallibility to reach the patient and cause harm (13-15). For example, in this issue's “The Wrong Patient,” Drs. Chassin and Becher describe the 17 errors that came together to allow one patient to receive an invasive procedure intended for another (16). Although neither the authors nor the other discussants in the series deny or sugarcoat the individual errors, they identify the failure or absence of systems to catch patient misidentifications and a cultural milieu that provides rich soil for system problems and individual mishaps to blossom into errors. Throughout the series, readers will be introduced to patient safety concepts, such as systems thinking, the “culture of safety,” root-cause analysis, and human-factors engineering, as well as to controversies in the field, including the central question, “What is an error?”.This series, which will appear in every three to four issues of Annals, is supported by the California HealthCare Foundation as part of its Quality Initiative. We are also grateful to our consulting editor, Kathy Dracup, RN, DNSc; our discussants; and our conference audiences for their participation and interest. The Annals Editors—particularly Drs. Harold Sox, Cynthia Mulrow, David Goldmann, and Frank Davidoff—have been unstinting supporters of this effort, demonstrating their commitment to educating physicians and trainees about quality and patient safety.Our largest debt, of course, is owed to the patients, family members, providers, and institutions that shared their stories with us. Almost to a person, participants told us that they did so in the hope that their tale would help prevent errors from harming other patients. Perhaps surprisingly, they reflected on their experiences with equanimity and even a sense of humor. For instance, the patient described in this issue, who underwent an unneeded invasive cardiac procedure because her name was similar to that of the intended patient, not only emphasized her desire to protect others but went on to say, “I was glad that my heart checked out OK.” We hope that Quality Grand Rounds does justice to this extraordinary spirit of generosity and makes a difference in promoting the systems and cultural changes needed to make health care safer.References1. Scully RE. Sounding boards. in defense of the CPC. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1114-6. [PMID: 492257] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Kassirer JP. Teaching clinical medicine by iterative hypothesis testing. Let's preach what we practice. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:921-3. [PMID: 6888486] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Delbanco TL, Daley J, Walzer J, Winker MA. Clinical crossroads: an invitation [Editorial]. JAMA. 1995;274:76-7. [PMID: 7791263] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. McPhee SJ, Rabow MW, Pantilat SZ, Markowitz AJ, Winker MA. Finding our way—perspectives on care at the close of life [Editorial]. JAMA. 2000;284:2512-3. [PMID: 11074784] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Newble DI, Entwistle NJ. Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education. Med Educ. 1986;20:162-75. [PMID: 3724571] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Wu AW, Folkman S, McPhee SJ, Lo B. Do house officers learn from their mistakes? JAMA. 1991;265:2089-94. [PMID: 2013929] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Berwick DM. You cannot expect people to be heroes. BMJ. 1998;316:1738. [PMID: 9652926] MedlineGoogle Scholar8. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:1851-7. [PMID: 7503827] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Pr; 1999. Google Scholar10. Barach P, Small SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. 2000;320:759-63. [PMID: 10720361] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Pear R. Clinton to order steps to reduce medical mistakes; a mandate for hospitals; states, in turn, will be asked to add systems to require the reporting of errors. The New York Times. 22 Feb 2000:A1(N), A1(L). Google Scholar12. Bogner MS. Human Error in Medicine. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc; 1994. Google Scholar13. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768-70. [PMID: 10720363] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Rasmussen J. Human error and the problem of causality in analysis of accidents. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1990;327:449-60. [PMID: 1970891] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, Hewett D, Prior S, Strange P, et al . How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. BMJ. 2000;320:777-81. [PMID: 10720366] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Chassin MR, Becher EC. The wrong patient. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:826-33. LinkGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Robert M. Wachter, MD; Kaveh G. Shojania, MD; Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH; Amy J. Markowitz, JD; Mark Smith, MD, MBAAffiliations: Corresponding Author: Robert M. Wachter, MD, Department of Medicine, Room M-994, 505 Parnassus Box 0120, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0120; e-mail, [email protected]ucsf.edu.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Wachter: Department of Medicine, Room M-994, 505 Parnassus Box 0120, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0120.Dr. Shojania: Department of Medicine, Box 0120, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0120.Dr. Saint: Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Room 7E08, 300 NIB–Campus Box 0429, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0429.Ms. Markowitz: 527 30th Street, San Francisco, CA 94131.Dr. Smith: California HealthCare Foundation, 476 Ninth Street, Oakland, CA 94607. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe Wrong Patient Mark R. Chassin and Elise C. Becher Quality Grand Rounds David Hirsch , Peter Gliatto , and Yasmin Meah Metrics Cited byA metacognitive confidence calibration (MCC) tool to help medical students scaffold diagnostic reasoning in decision-making during high-fidelity patient simulationsHow Safe Is Cancer Care?The Henri Mondor Procedure of Morbidity and Mortality Review Meetings: Prospective Registration of Clinical, Dosimetric, and Individual Radiosensitivity Data of Patients With Severe Radiation ToxicityIndividual and contextual factors influencing engagement in learning activities after errors at workGrand Rounds for Dental Students: An ExplorationSpecific Diagnoses of Organizational Dysfunction to Guide Mechanism-based Quality Improvement InterventionsAttitudes to causes of failure to report service errorsCounting Matters: Lessons from the Root Cause Analysis of a Retained Surgical ItemEnterprise risk management for health insurance from an actuarial perspectiveThe Impact of Automation of Systems on Medical Errors: Evidence from Field ResearchMortality meetings: ethical considerations and adherence to evidence-based practice from 6 years of experience in a mixed cardiac departmentCommentary: Medical Malpractice and Patient Safety: Tear Down That Wall!On the pursuit of clinical excellenceImproving Handoff Communications in Critical Care*: Utilizing Simulation-Based Training Toward Process Improvement in Managing Patient RiskClinicopathological Conferences in Plastic Surgery: Learning from Clinical Patient Care Issues???A New Series for Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryPatients’ Concerns About Medical Errors During HospitalizationThe profession of medicine: a joint US–German collaborative project in medical educationFixing Healthcare from the Inside: Teaching Residents to Heal Broken Delivery Processes As They Heal Sick PatientsUsing system analysis to build a safety culture: improving the reliability of epidural analgesiaAmbiguity and Workarounds as Contributors to Medical ErrorSteven J. Spear, DBA, MS, MS and Mark Schmidhofer, MD, MSLearning to Improve Safety: False-Positive Pathology Report Results in Wrongful SurgeryIntroducing the National Patient Safety Goals Department: Sharing Programs of Excellence from Individual OrganizationsImproving Patient Care: Learning More from Bad OutcomesPatient Concerns about Medical Errors in Emergency DepartmentsPreventing Medical Errors in Pediatric Emergency MedicineImproving patients' safety locally: changing clinician behaviourPoWER Program: People with Disabilities Educating ResidentsMalpractice Reform Must Include Steps To Prevent Medical InjuryStephen C. Schoenbaum, MD, MPH and Randall R. Bovbjerg, JDA view of our future: The case for redesigning rheumatology practiceA different approach to safety in emergency medicineQuality Grand RoundsDavid Hirsch, MD, Peter Gliatto, MD, and Yasmin Meah, MDLa responsabilidad de los actos médicosEl caso clínico en medicina general 4 June 2002Volume 136, Issue 11Page: 850-852KeywordsHealth careHeartMedical educationMorbidityMortalityMotivationNursesQuality improvementReasoningSafety ePublished: 4 June 2002 Issue Published: 4 June 2002 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2002 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...