Journal of Patient Safety· 2026Q1
Factors Influencing Statutory Duty of Candor Implementation in Victoria, Australia
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
In Victoria, Australia, the Statutory Duty of Candor (SDC) is supported for its intent to improve transparency after patient safety events, but implementation is hindered by a gap between legislative goals and patient needs, clinician apprehension about blame, and practical concerns regarding timelines and definitions.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Statutory Duty of Candor (SDC) is generally supported for improving transparency and accountability in patient safety incident management.
- A significant gap exists between the legislative intent of SDC and its interpretation and application in practice.
- Clinician apprehension regarding blame and scrutiny, alongside practical concerns about timelines and definitions, are major barriers to SDC implementation.
- Patients and families seek support for recovery, which is not always aligned with healthcare services' focus on meeting legislated SDC requirements.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, candor-type legislations, which encourage transparency following a serious adverse patient safety event (SAPSE), exist in various countries, or jurisdictions within them, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Ireland, and Australia. However, an evidence gap exists in the barriers and facilitators to the legislation's implementation. This study explores key influencers on Statutory Duty of Candor (SDC) implementation in the Australian state of Victoria from the perspectives of health care managers, patients, and families. METHODS: A thematic secondary analysis of 20 interview transcripts: 10 with health care managers experienced in SDC; and 10 with patients and family members who had experienced a SAPSE. Indicative themes were established inductively, and then overlaid and analyzed deductively to evaluate relevance using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Participants reported that SDC improved visibility and accountability regarding patient safety and incident management. However, findings also indicated misalignment, between the legislation's intent and its interpretation, and between health services' objective to meet the legislated requirements and patients' and families' objective to access support for recovery. The study also identified barriers, including clinician apprehension about SDC's impact (eg, blame and/or scrutiny) and concerns about the practicalities of legislated requirements (eg, flexibility of timelines and consistent interpretation of definitions). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate support for the intent and principles of SDC, but also highlight barriers which constrain the legislation's implementation and effectiveness in practice. These barriers may be addressed by extending SDC's focus to encompass restorative approaches (eg, by offering individualized support), while also assisting health system learning and quality improvement.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Patient Safety, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Emergency Medical Services
Emergency Medical ServicesHealth Professions