Page 18 - OB Risks - Delivering the Goods (Part One)

SVMIC Obstetrics Risks: Delivering the Goods

misunderstandings, increasing the likelihood of mistakes that

could place the patient’s health and treatment at risk — and that
can leave the physician in jeopardy for malpractice litigation.

From a safety standpoint, it is undisputed that patient outcomes

depend on successful communication. Open communication
increases the likelihood that the physician will be provided with

more complete information, and the better the information, the
more likely it is that the patient will receive the best possible

quality of care. Successful communication leads to a more
accurate diagnosis and a better treatment plan, and it may well

be that, in the long-term, effective communication skills save
time by increasing patient adherence to treatment. They may

not only promote better health long-term for the patient and
reduce potential liability, but also reduce the need for follow-up

calls and visits.

The foundation for a positive physician–patient interaction is

formed by establishing a partnership and creating a meaningful
dialogue. Accomplishing this in a brief office visit may be

challenging, but with adequate planning, these encounters
can be structured in a positive way. Improving communication

with patients, listening to their concerns, and facilitating active
partnerships should be central to any patient safety strategy.
9
This paradigm of communication may be a marked departure
from the traditional doctor-centered model. An example of a

shared decision-making model is that of the National Institutes
of Health Consensus Panel on vaginal birth after cesarean

delivery. The Consensus Panel recommended that the decision
10

9 https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2011/05/
partnering-with-patients-to-improve-safety
10 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth
after cesarean: new insights March 8–10, 2010. National Institutes of Health Consensus
Development Conference Panel. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1279–95

Page 18