BMJ Medical Ethics Blog: Ethically Inconsistent Marketing of Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs)

Over the last couple years there has been a fight or squabble concerning how to market post-event transparency, whether it be called disclosure, communication and resolution programs (CRPs), CANDOR, or whatever. Should the concept be pitched as a risk/litigation reduction strategy, patient safety tool, ethical concept ("do the right thing"), or all of the above?  Sorry Works! has been involved this fray, and we prefer "all of the above."  Please understand, though, we are not afraid to market the litigation/risk implications of transparency along with the safety and ethics advantages.  Others -- most notably the principals involved with the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement ("the Collaborative") -- have primarily stressed safety principles while trying to downplay financial and risk benefits. Our opinions on this topic have clashed in medical journals, e-newsletters, and other forums. This past summer a Collaborative speaker took a jab at us by claiming folks who tout the risk/litigation benefits of disclosure are "consequentialists" (means justify the ends), while the Collaborative only focuses on safety and fidelity of the process.

The latest installment in this ongoing debate was published yesterday (11/30/21) by Sorry Works! Doug Wojcieszak in the BMJ Medical Ethics Blog: find link here.  

Far from being an academic debate, this is important stuff. How we market and position the movement matters, immensely. Many people wring their hands because not enough healthcare organizations have adopted disclosure/CRP programs.  Well, maybe it's because the CRP safety messaging is not connecting with the CEO, CLO, CMO, claims guys, and other decision makers who are primarily worried about risk and the bottom line?  Moreover, as discussed in the BMJ ethics blog article, there has been too much dishonesty in med-mal for too long and the primary stakeholders -- patients, families, and clinicians -- have been lied to repeatedly through the years. Those advocating transparency must be honest concerning the intentions and value of disclosure/CRP programs, and not contradict themselves. Indeed, the Collaborative itself receives financial support from insurance carriers and surely dollars and risk are the number one, two, and three priorities for those insurers.    

The ultimate goal of this article is to generate more discussion and debate around this issue. Hopefully, this discussion will lead to a more in-depth article on this topic and, ultimately, more consensus among advocates. So, please share this article with others, and make your feelings known to me -- good, bad, or otherwise. The more discussion the better! 

Sincerely,

- Doug

Doug Wojcieszak, Founder and President
Sorry Works!
618-559-8168 (direct dial) 
doug@sorryworks.net