Defined as patients who ‘lack decision-making capacity and a surrogate decision-maker’, the unrepresented (sometimes referred to as the ‘unbefriended’, ‘isolated patients’ and/or ‘patients without surrogates’) present a major quandary to clinicians and ethicists, especially in handling errors made in their care. A novel concern presented in the care of the unrepresented is how to address an error when there is seemingly no one to whom it can be disclosed. Given that the number of unrepresented Americans is expected to rise in the coming decades, and some fraction of them will experience a medical error, creating protocols that answer this troubling question is of the utmost importance. This paper attempts to begin that conversation, first arguing that the precarious position of unrepresented patients, particularly in regards to errors made in their care, demands their recognition as a vulnerable patient population. Next, it asserts that the ethical obligation to disclose error still exists for the unrepresented because the moral status of error does not change with the presence or absence of surrogate decision-makers. Finally, this paper concludes that in outwardly acknowledging wrongdoing, a clinician or team leader can alleviate significant moral distress, satisfy the standards of a genuine apology, and validate the inherent and equivalent moral worth of the unrepresented patient.
- medical error
- truth disclosure
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors ASB: conceived of the original topic and thesis, conducted literature review and wrote the manuscript. KM: performed edits, contributed to discussion of ethics and apology and gave input on feedback on manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Factors associated with disclosure of medical errors by housestaff
- What ‘Just Culture’ doesn’t understand about just punishment
- Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care
- Inpatient patient safety events in vulnerable populations: a retrospective cohort study
- Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey
- Medical error disclosure: the gap between attitude and practice
- The morbidity and mortality conference as an adverse event surveillance tool in a paediatric intensive care unit
- Disclosure of medical error to parents and paediatric patients: assessment of parents' attitudes and influencing factors
- On higher ground: ethical reasoning and its relationship with error disclosure
- Taking the blame: appropriate responses to medical error