Skip to main content

The Patient’s and Patient Family’s Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Patient Safety in Surgery

Abstract

Open and honest communication between the healthcare provider and the patient is the backbone of patient/family expectations. The patients, family members and their advocates expect a full explanation and understanding of their treatment options and outcomes. Cases are often discussed in the presence of the patient among other healthcare providers without involving the patient. This leads to a disconnection in the patient’s involvement in their own care. By not actively including patients and or their representatives in conversations about their treatment, providers fail to confirm that patients understand the course of treatment, and fail to confirm that the course of treatment is in fact the treatment the patient would choose if fully informed. A rift develops between the patient and the health care system. Involving the patient, family members or advocate in the decision-making conversations and eventual signing of an informed consent form are vital tools for both patient and provider. Understanding the patients’ point of view is essential in fulfilling expectations in health care. The provider should always be thinking “never talk about me without me” when discussing treatment options, complications or expectations. While neither surgeon nor patient welcomes a poor outcome, the tragedy of a poor outcome is amplified when the outcome is a surprise to the patient and patient’s family. It is no wonder that the largest indicator of malpractice suits stem from a surprise outcome or course of events. By using effective and active communication, patients and physicians can collaborate to build a safer healthcare team, and a team that meets its customers’ expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kennedy I. Patients are experts in their own field. BMJ. 2003;326:1276–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huntington B, Kuhn N. Communication gaffes: a root cause of malpractice claims. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2003;16(2):157–61.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pichert JW, Miller CS, Hollo AH, Gauld-Jaeger J, Federspiel CF, Hickson GB. What health professionals can do to identify and resolve patient dissatisfaction. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24(6):303–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet. 1994;343(8913):1609–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PB, Sloan FA. Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA. 1992;267(10):1359–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sheppard F, Williams M, Klein VR. TeamSTEPPS and patient safety in healthcare. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2013;32(3):5–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wall Y, Kautz DD. Preventing sentinel events caused by family members. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2011;30(1):25–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lamontagne C. Intimidation: a concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2010;45(1):54–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyons KJ, Giordano C, Speakman E, Isenberg G, Antony R, et al. Jefferson interprofessional clinical rounding project: an innovative approach to patient care. J Allied Health. 2013;42(4):197–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mittal VS, Sigrest T, Ottolini MC, Rauch D, Lin H, et al. Family-centered rounds on pediatric wards: a PRIS network survey of US and Canadian hospitalists. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):37–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalo JD, Chuang CH, Huang G, Smith C. The return of bedside rounds: an educational intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(8):792–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sisterhen LL, Blaszak RT, Woods MB, Smith CE. Defining family-centered rounds. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):319–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stickrath C, Noble M, Prochazka A, Anderson M, Griffiths M, et al. Attending rounds in the current era: what is and is not happening. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(12):1084–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patty J. Skolnik BASW .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skolnik, P.J., Butler, N. (2014). The Patient’s and Patient Family’s Perspective. In: Stahel, P., Mauffrey, C. (eds) Patient Safety in Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4369-7_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4369-7_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4368-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4369-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics