Click here for printer friendly version
From the May 19, 2005
issue
Despite widespread recognition that blame, shame, and
punishment for mistakes are tremendously counterproductive
to patient safety, responses to our February 24, 2005, survey
from 1,572 licensed healthcare providers suggest that participants
still fear punitive action from their licensing boards in
the wake of a medication error.
General results. As expected, participants anticipated
an increasing severity of punishment by the licensing boards
as the patient outcome worsened. For example, 93% of respondents
believed their licenses would be restricted in some fashion
if involved in a fatal medication error. At least one in
three respondents thought their license would be placed
on probation (41%) or suspended (33%), and about one in
five (19%) thought it would be revoked. If the patient was
harmed but did not die, 22% believed license probation would
result, 6% felt license suspension would occur, and just
1% felt that license revocation would occur. One in six
(16%) also felt there would be a monetary fine included
for fatal errors, and 7% thought this would also occur with
an otherwise harmful event. Half of all participants believed
that remedial education would be required in the wake of
either a harmful or fatal medication error.
Many respondents clearly feared licensing action if an
error involved a policy violation, or if three errors or
more were reported to their licensing board, regardless
of severity or patient outcome. For a policy violation,
39% thought it would result in a written reprimand; 40%
believed remedial education would be required; and almost
half felt that action would be taken against their license
in the form of probation (24%), suspension (17%), or revocation
(6%). Similar fears were expressed if three or more errors
were reported to the board within 1 year. However, even
more respondents felt that their licenses would be placed
on probation (34%), suspended (24%), or revoked (14%) under
this condition. Almost one in five also thought that notification
to other states in which they were licensed would be required
if three or more errors were reported annually.
Surprisingly, 30% of respondents felt that they would receive
a verbal or written reprimand, or be required to obtain
remedial education, even if the reported medication error
never reached the patient! While a reprimand may not
seem as punitive as license restrictions, still, these actions
often become part of the professionals licensing records,
at least temporarily.
Differences between the professions. Overall, physician
respondents (n=36) expected less punitive action from their
licensing boards than nurses (n=1,094) and pharmacists (n=326),
particularly for intercepted or minor errors. Licensed practical
nurses (n=64) expected the most punitive action from their
boards, regardless of the type or severity of the error.
Pharmacists and physicians anticipated less remedial education
than nurses for potentially harmful errors and policy violations.
With the exception of remedial education, registered nurses
and pharmacists expected about the same results from their
licensing boards when involved in a medication error. Clinicians
who were also attorneys (n=38) generally expected the licensing
bodies to mete out more serious license restrictions and
more remedial education.
Differences if error reported. Punitive actions were anticipated
more often among the respondents (n=50) who had experienced
a medication error that had been reported to their licensing
body within the last 5 years. This subset of individuals
reported more anticipated verbal and written reprimands
in all categories except minor or intercepted errors. However,
for minor and intercepted errors, there was often an increase
in the anticipated remedial education.
This subset also felt there would be greater penalties
against their licenses, especially for fatal errors, policy
violations, and three or more errors reported per year.
For a policy violation, 36% of the subset expected license
probation, 24% expected license suspension, and 12% anticipated
license revocation, compared to 24%, 17%, and 5% respectively
from respondents who had not had an error reported to the
licensing body. For three or more errors per year, 56% of
the error group expected probation, 34% expected suspension,
and 22% anticipated license revocation, compared to 33%,
24%, and 12% respectively. This subset of individuals also
reported a greater expectation of monetary fines for all
categories except intercepted errors.
Interestingly, respondents who are, or have ever been,
an employee or panel member of a licensing board (n=34)
consistently expected a higher degree of punitive action
in the wake of a medication error. Demographic differences
between individual states could not be determined due to
insufficient data among all 50 US states.
Usefulness of publications. Overall, respondents
were split regarding the value of newsletters published
by their licensing boards; 16% found the publications very
helpful to patient safety and quality; 33% found them somewhat
helpful; and 52% were not sure or did not find the publications
helpful at all. Overall, licensed practical nurses found
the publications most helpful, and physicians found them
least helpful. However, if the not sure responses
regarding newsletter value are removed, attorneys found
the publications the least helpful, even though the information
contained within primarily covers illegal activities. Pharmacists
found the publications to be more helpful than did registered
nurses.
Respondents who had experienced a medication error that
had actually been reported to their licensing board found
the newsletter less valuable than the group who had never
had an error reported to the board. Conversely, 82% of respondents
who are, or had ever been, an employee or panel member of
a licensing board found the publication useful.
Conclusion. Its clear from our survey that
many nurses, pharmacists, and physicians believe that their
licensing boards might very well take serious action against
them if they are involved in a medication error, be it a
near miss that never reaches the patient, or a tragically
fatal error with a multitude of system-based causes. In
fact, respondents who have experienced an error reported
to their licensing boards within the past 5 years paint
an even more ominous picture, offering confirmation that
healthcare providers might, indeed, have a basis for worry.
These results describe a disconnect between healthcare
providers anticipated response to an error by their licensing
boards and the 1999 landmark Institute of Medicine report,
To Err is Human, and advice from national safety
experts, which clearly refute the value of punishment for
unintentional acts such as errors.
Hopefully there are impending positive changes within the
healthcare professional licensing boards in the not-too-distant
futurechanges brought about by healthcares overall
evolving culture of safety. ISMP will bring any new promising
initiatives by licensing boards to the attention of our
readers and others. To all who participated in this survey,
we thank you and will use the findings to continue our efforts
on a national level to influence policy, actively promote
publication of error reduction strategies in licensing body
publications, and support a more just culture within the
various state licensing boards. View tables with full survey data.