← University
Adverse Events and Critical Incident Reporting
0 of 6

A medication error at a mid-sized regional hospital in central Alberta set off a chain of institutional questions that reached every level of the organization within 72 hours. The incident involved a 67-year-old patient recovering from elective surgery who received 10 times the intended dose of an anticoagulant medication, resulting in internal bleeding that required emergency intervention and an extended stay in intensive care. The patient survived but experienced complications that prolonged hospitalization by 11 days and left residual symptoms requiring ongoing monitoring.

The error originated during an overnight shift when a registered nurse on a medical-surgical unit transcribed a physician's verbal order into the electronic medication administration record. The nurse, working the 3rd consecutive 12-hour shift on a unit operating at 94 percent capacity with 2 vacant positions, entered a decimal point in the wrong position. The hospital's electronic ordering system flagged the dosage as outside normal parameters, but the nurse overrode the alert, a function the system permitted without requiring secondary authorization. A pharmacist reviewed the order 4 hours later during a routine batch check but did not catch the discrepancy before the medication was administered.

The patient's spouse, present at bedside during the deterioration, observed staff responding to the crisis and asked direct questions about what had caused the sudden change in condition. The attending physician, uncertain about the hospital's disclosure protocols and concerned about potential liability, provided only general reassurances during the acute phase. By the time the patient stabilized 36 hours later, no formal disclosure conversation had taken place with either the patient or the family.

The hospital's quality and patient safety department initiated an internal review, but administrators discovered that the unit in question had submitted only 4 incident reports in the preceding 6 months despite staffing pressures and workload concerns that staff had raised informally with their manager. Exit interviews with 3 nurses who had recently resigned from the unit revealed a pattern of discouraging incident reporting when the unit was short-staffed, with one departing nurse describing a culture in which submitting reports was viewed as creating work rather than protecting patients.

The regional health authority's patient safety reporting system required notification of serious adverse events within 24 hours, and the nursing regulatory body maintained its own expectations for self-reporting of practice concerns. The hospital now faced questions about what reports were required, to whom, and within what timeframes, alongside deeper questions about organizational culture, disclosure obligations to the patient and family, and whether the incident reflected individual error or systemic failure requiring root cause analysis and quality improvement intervention.

Patient Disclosure: The Legal and Ethical Obligation to Tell the Patient

When something goes wrong in a care setting, the instinct to minimize, delay, or avoid difficult conversations with patients and residents is deeply human. Healthcare workers, corrections officers, and residential care staff often find themselves caught between their obligation to be transparent and their fear of the consequences that disclosure might bring. Yet across Canadian law, professional standards, and ethical frameworks, the obligation to disclose adverse events and critical incidents to those affected by them stands as a fundamental requirement that cannot be negotiated away by institutional convenience or individual discomfort. This obligation exists not merely as a legal technicality but as an expression of the deeper principle that individuals receiving care retain their dignity, autonomy, and right to information about what happens to their own bodies and lives, even when that information is difficult for caregivers to share.

The legal foundation for patient disclosure in Canada emerges from multiple overlapping sources that together create a comprehensive framework governing how and when information about adverse events must be communicated. At the most fundamental level, the common law duty of informed consent, which applies across all Canadian provinces and territories except Quebec, establishes that patients have the right to know material information about their care, including information about things that have gone wrong. This duty arises from the recognition that bodily autonomy requires the ability to make informed decisions, and patients cannot make such decisions if they are kept in the dark about incidents that may affect their health, treatment options, or prognosis. Quebec's civil law framework arrives at substantially the same destination through different doctrinal routes, grounding the disclosure obligation in the Civil Code of Quebec's provisions regarding the integrity of the person and the duty of good faith in contractual relationships, including the therapeutic relationship between healthcare providers and patients. As of the date of authorship, both the common law provinces and Quebec recognize that failing to disclose material adverse events constitutes a breach of the standard of care owed to patients and can ground both civil liability and professional discipline.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.