TY - JOUR
T1 - Apology after medical errors: a qualitative vignette study
T2 - Medical errors: impact of apology and admission on the resolution and compensation of claims
AU - Bijleveld, CCJH
AU - Blazevic, Margareta
AU - van Voorst tot Voorst, Esther Anna Maria
AU - Akkermans, Arno
AU - Niggeler, Coralie
AU - Fisher, Michal
AU - Huizing, Tessa
AU - Karatza, Anastasia
AU - Kock, Darney
AU - McGrath, Svenja
AU - Muckermann, Verena
AU - Nassiri, Youssef
AU - Petrova, Hristina
AU - Prange, Nathalie
AU - Schutzbach, Beatrice
AU - Steijns, Moni
AU - Szánthó, Zselyke
AU - van Vliet, Jax
PY - 2023/6
Y1 - 2023/6
N2 - Studies investigating the impact of apologies and admission of responsibility for medical errors have been primarily observational, making it hard to attach a causal effect to the admission of responsibility and apologies. Second, most research on the settlement of medical malpractice cases were conducted in the US, with its particular litigation laws and culture. In this multi-jurisdictional study, we investigate the impact of apology and admission of responsibility on preferred resolution and compensation of claims. Employing a vignette design, we examine, among a sample of 327 respondents from 10 different countries, whether admission and apology by the doctor impact respondents' preference for resolution through a civil court case, mediation or a disciplinary board, as well as preferred damages for pain and suffering. Admission and apology by the physician in the vignette did not impact respondents' preference for settlement through a civil court case or mediation, nor did it affect the amount respondents found suitable compensation for pains and damages. We perceived the absence of an apology as particularly aggravating. Thematic analysis of open answers reveals that the impact of admission and apology differs for the three resolution modes and is often contextual and conditional. Future (vignette) studies should investigate whether different cases of medical errors yield similar results and whether more knowledgeable or experienced respondents (such as lawyers) would have other preferences and arguments.
AB - Studies investigating the impact of apologies and admission of responsibility for medical errors have been primarily observational, making it hard to attach a causal effect to the admission of responsibility and apologies. Second, most research on the settlement of medical malpractice cases were conducted in the US, with its particular litigation laws and culture. In this multi-jurisdictional study, we investigate the impact of apology and admission of responsibility on preferred resolution and compensation of claims. Employing a vignette design, we examine, among a sample of 327 respondents from 10 different countries, whether admission and apology by the doctor impact respondents' preference for resolution through a civil court case, mediation or a disciplinary board, as well as preferred damages for pain and suffering. Admission and apology by the physician in the vignette did not impact respondents' preference for settlement through a civil court case or mediation, nor did it affect the amount respondents found suitable compensation for pains and damages. We perceived the absence of an apology as particularly aggravating. Thematic analysis of open answers reveals that the impact of admission and apology differs for the three resolution modes and is often contextual and conditional. Future (vignette) studies should investigate whether different cases of medical errors yield similar results and whether more knowledgeable or experienced respondents (such as lawyers) would have other preferences and arguments.
KW - medical malpractice
KW - vignette study
KW - settlement
KW - multi-jurisdictional
UR - https://amsterdamlawforum.org/
M3 - Article
SN - 1876-8156
VL - 15
SP - 3
EP - 19
JO - Amsterdam Law Forum
JF - Amsterdam Law Forum
IS - 2
M1 - 15/2
ER -