Specialist GP Nikki Vadgama provides some tips to make your next paediatric eczema consult easier. She includes a review of new guidelines, resources, websites and medications for paediatric eczema management
The art of the humble apology
The art of the humble apology
Here at New Zealand Doctor Rata Aotearoa we are on our summer break! While we're gone, check out Summer Hiatus: Stories we think deserve to be read again!
Archival rummage 28 March 2018. Apologies plays a big part in the complaints process. In 2018, Fiona Thomas asked the experts to shed light on the controversial doctor-to-patient apology – Barbara Fountain
The HDC has directed that I apologise to you. I am therefore writing to you to apologise for the findings made by the commissioner
SORRY SEEMS to be the hardest word. It’s as true today as when Sir Elton John released his 1976 hit single.
Sorry is a word the Kiwi GP may have to come out with at some stage in their career. The average GP will receive a complaint four or five times in their career, and some of those complainants will need apologies.
Receiving a complaint is daunting. It can cut deeply.
Rangiora GP Steve Brown says some doctors believe they wouldn’t be able to continue in practice if they were accused of a serious error or wrongdoing.
Younger doctors tend to fear complaints so much, it affects their practice and they second-guess themselves and order too many tests.
But, says Dr Brown, real errors happen to everyone.
He finds apologies are becoming accepted as part and parcel of medicine. In the past, they were deemed a risk best left to the “legal beavers” to sort out, he says.
Some doctors still dislike apologising and are angry attitudes towards apologies have changed.
But, for Dr Brown, apologising is about “eating humble pie”. The older he gets, the more he realises what he doesn’t know and what could go wrong – and that is a humbling experience.
GPs are New Zealand’s most complained-about health professionals, and the volume of complaints is increasing across all health professions.
In latest statistics from the health and disability commissioner, a third of complaints against individuals are against GPs; complaints against GP practices make up a quarter of complaints against providers.
Commissioner Anthony Hill points out many complaints don’t reach the HDC or other disciplinary forums; plenty are dealt with by practices themselves. Mr Hill says practices that deal with a complaint well can ensure it doesn’t end up on his desk.
A good apology, even when there has been an error, often provides the resolution patients need without taking the matter further.
Medical Protection Society (MPS) advisor and south Auckland GP Samantha King spends a large chunk of her time advising doctors on how to respond to complaints.
Dr King says most doctors are very willing to apologise if something has gone wrong, or if a patient is unhappy with a consultation.
A small handful of doctors struggle with apologising. It may be when they feel they have done nothing wrong, that a complaint is not justified.
More often than not, she says, it’s because they don’t understand what an apology is.
Apologising for something going wrong, or for the fact that a patient is not happy with their experience, is not a blanket apology for everything, she points out.
When doctors receive a complaint, the response is emotional. That’s understandable, Dr King says. The GP may have gone the extra mile for the patient or have a long-standing relationship with them.
They may also fear the consequences of apologising.
New Zealand Doctor interviewed GPs, lawyers and regulators, and all say doctors should not apologise for something they didn’t do.
Equally, they say an apology can convey empathy and sympathy for an event occurring, but does not have to imply the doctor is shouldering the blame.
The advice from all parties is to apologise, and to do so early. But the real crunch is in the balance between conveying remorse and taking responsibility.
Mr Hill says a “truth context” needs to be considered. It’s never wrong to show empathy, but doctors are never expected to apologise for something going wrong if the truth is not yet known, he says.
However, saying sorry for a patient’s bad experience, and offering to help them through it, is “entirely right”.
When a complaint comes in, Mr Hill advises the doctor to assess it objectively, respond in a timely way, and be open and transparent. If something has gone wrong, the patient needs to know, and has a right to know.
Wellington barrister Gaeline Phipps, who writes the New Zealand Doctor medicolegal column, has represented or advised scores of doctors in complaint cases.
Ms Phipps says the need to apologise promptly and address problems is well established, but less understood is how to do it well.
Saying sorry is easy, she says. Conveying that you mean it is the art.
A vital part of a sincere apology is a shared interest, she says. That shared interest can range from both the doctor and patient wanting to find out the truth, wanting to make sure it doesn’t happen again or something more personal. A doctor and patient may want to live in the same community following an adverse event, or a family may want to keep the doctor as their regular GP.
Having a shared goal gives patients and doctors an impetus to work past the problem together, Ms Phipps says.
Offering to meet the patient can be powerful, as a meeting can prevent the patient “demonising” the doctor.
“You are seen around the table as a fellow human being and, if you have a reasonable, empathic approach, [the complainant] will see you as genuine in what you intend to do.”
She agrees with Mr Hill on the need to be objective, and says this helps because many doctors are incredibly hard on themselves. A good way to get some objectivity is to put on several “hats” when writing an apology.
First, wear the hat of the physician. Next, try the hat of a colleague writing the apology on behalf of their fellow team member. Last, doctors should wear the hat of the complainant suffering the harm.
This round of wardrobe changes should help with composing the formal written apology, but it’s important to “sleep on” the response before firing it off, Ms Phipps says.
The bottom line is, you don’t have to apologise for something you didn’t do, but you do have to think soberly about what has occurred to provoke this complaint
Poor apologies, given without real care, can be worse than the original offence.
Mr Hill says apologies along the lines of “I’m sorry you felt that way” are not helpful. Neither are apologies signed by an organisation rather than the doctor. Excuses can also be unhelpful, he says.
Ms Phipps points to an HDC case in which an apology had been written for the parents of a boy who committed suicide.
The parents felt they needed to battle the health services to get their son treatment and, four years
after his death, the psychiatrist involved was ordered to apologise.
“Dear Mr and Mrs X…As you know, the health and disability commissioner has concluded that when [the patient] was under my care I breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights, specifically Right 4(1)…The HDC has directed that I apologise to you. I am therefore writing to you to apologise for the findings made by the commissioner. I also take this opportunity to again extend my condolences to you in respect of the loss of your son…Yours sincerely…,” wrote the doctor.
The apology was rejected by the HDC, and the doctor was asked to write a new one, but the original found its way to the boy’s parents, and to media. Ms Phipps says lasting damage was done.
The parents felt the apology was mocking, but thought another apology would be coerced and meaningless.
Institutions can make matters worse when a patient or family seek an apology.
Managers or administration staff, particularly at DHBs, sometimes write apologies to patients before doctors have had time to review the case and address the problem themselves.
This can either get facts wrong or pit the organisation and the patient together against the doctor in an unhelpful game of “good cop, bad doctor”.
Auckland Medical School head and Health Quality & Safety Commission chair Alan Merry says the culture around apologising has improved greatly since his early days of anaesthesia practice in the late 1970s.
“I think most doctors are compassionate and empathic, and feel sorry when something happens,” Professor Merry says.
The greatest barrier for doctors trying to convey sympathy is time. It takes time to investigate what has happened, and understand the context of an adverse event, but most practitioners are extremely time-poor, he says.
ACC and the HDC, while not perfect, are excellent intermediaries, both for looking after patients and encouraging disclosure from doctors, according to Professor Merry.
He points out medical schools are putting a lot of work into training health professionals about communication, but there aren’t enough programmes teaching the same skills to older doctors.
“When something has happened, it’s important to listen to what the patient’s issue is because it might be surprisingly different to what you think.”
In some countries, apologising can mean an inference of guilt or culpability, which doctors are eager to avoid.
Professor Merry says legal advisers in New Zealand tended in the past to tell doctors not to say anything, but that is changing.
Mr Hill considers New Zealand has the most benign legal environment in the Western world, thanks to ACC’s no-fault system of compensation.
If a mistake has happened, an apology doesn’t change your legal liability, he says.
“The bottom line is, you don’t have to apologise for something you didn’t do, but you do have to think soberly about what has occurred to provoke this complaint.”
Ms Phipps says that might be an oversimplification. The legal context is different from the medical one, she says. There is no one-size-fits-all piece of advice for complaints, as they can range from a scenario where a doctor is “a bit insensitive” to conduct where there may be a criminal prosecution, for example, manslaughter.
What is said in apologies is on record for use if a case against a doctor goes further, be it to the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal or the criminal court, she says.
Some indemnity policies state, as a condition, that if a doctor admits something that causes prejudice to their cover, the indemnifier can void the claim.
For that reason, Ms Phipps says, as a matter of good practice, doctors should notify their indemnifier as soon as possible.
“But, that said, having been instructed both by discretionary and contract indemnifiers, I’ve never had a case where a timely, appropriate apology has stopped a doctor getting assistance.”
ACC may remove the threat of having to pay damages, but a serious allegation of medical error can still put the defendant doctor through numerous, exhausting legal processes.
Investigations can drag on for years before a final decision is released, and can involve a myriad of layers of inquiry into conduct.
Mr Hill’s office can require doctors to undergo further training or supervision, audit the behaviour of a practice or practitioner, refer them to the Medical Council and, of course, require doctors to apologise.
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal can impose costs, fines and suspensions.
A recommendation from the HDC that a clinician apologise can be open to public criticism as just a slap on the wrist.
But apologies in medicine carry a heavy weight and, from Mr Hill’s perspective, are accompanied by other measures that aren’t always given media coverage.
The great majority of practitioners comply with what the HDC asks them to do. In his eight years as commissioner, he can think of only one example of a doctor refusing to apologise.
All-out refusal to apologise after being asked by the commissioner would get a doctor sent to the Medical Council, he says.
He can remember a further four times he has had to reject apologies and require they be done again. That’s out of about 10,000 cases that have come across his desk.
Increasingly, doctors know the value of an apology, he says. In-house processes for dealing with complaints in primary care are becoming more advanced.
“You can never undo what has occurred, but you can say what has happened has not been in vain, something will change as a result. In very serious errors, that is profoundly important.”
-A third of complaints to the health and disability commissioner in 2016/17 against individual practitioners were against GPs (319 complaints).
-Since July 2017, complaints to the commissioner have risen 26 per cent, with the percentage against GPs staying proportionate.
-The Medical Protection Society says the number of cases, including complaints, where it was asked for help in 2017 was 14 per cent up on the year before.
-MPS took on 900 new cases involving GPs in 2017. Cases ranged from help with coroners’ reports and police enquiries, to complaints; in 400 of the cases, MPS helped GPs respond to complaints.
RELATED ARTICLES - Before 1 August 2017 are stored in the Knowledge Basket
- GP’s apology falls short – 10 February 2010
- Saying sorry works – 23 March 2005