APOLOGY AFTER MEDICAL ERRORS: A QUALITATIVE VIGNETTE STUDY

Background Studies that have investigated the impact of apologies and admission of responsibility for medical errors have been mostly observational, which makes it hard to attach a causal effect to admission of responsibility and apologies. Secondly, the vast majority of research on the settlement of medical malpractice cases has been conducted in the US, that has its own, 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 medical malpractice claims. Methods Employing a vignette design, we examine, among a sample of 327 respondents from different countries, whether admission and apology by the doctor impacts respondents' preference for resolution through a civil court case, mediation or a disciplinary board, as well as preferred damages for pain and suffering. Results 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 impact the amount that respondents found suitable as compensation for pains and damages. Thematic analysis of open answers reveals that the impact of admission and apology is different for the three resolution modes, and often contextual and conditional. Conclusion Future (vignette) studies should investigate whether different cases of medical malpractice yield similar results, and whether more knowledgeable or experienced respondents (such as lawyers) would have different preferences and arguments.