IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Managing medical mistakes: Ideology, insularity and accountability among internists-in-training

Listed author(s):
  • Mizrahi, Terry
Registered author(s):

    By the end of graduate medical training, novice internists (collectively known as the housestaff) were initiated into the experience of either having done something to a patient which had a deleterious consequence or else having witnessed colleagues do the same. When these events occurred, the housestaff engaged in social-psychological processes, utilizing a variety of coping mechanisms and in-group practices to manage these mishaps. Three major mechanisms were utilized by the housestaff for defining and defending the various mishaps which frequently occurred: denial, discounting and distancing. Denial consisted of three components: the negation of the concept of error by defining the practice of medicine as an art with 'gray areas', the repression of actual mistakes by forgetting them and the redefinition of mistakes to non-mistakes. Discounting included those defenses which externalized the blame; namely mistakes which were due to circumstances beyond their control. These included: blaming the bureaucratic system outside of medicine; blaming superiors or subordinates within internal medicine; blaming the disease and blaming the patient. When they could not longer deny or discount a mistake because of its magnitude, they utilized distancing techniques. Not withstanding this shared elaborate repertoire of denial, discounting and distancing, it was found that profound doubts and even guilt remained for many housestaff. These troublesome feelings neither easily no automatically resolved themselves. Interspersed among their defenses were fundamental questions of culpability and responsibility as they vacillated between self and other blame. For many 'the case was never closed', even as they terminated formal training, a point neglected in the medical and sociological literature. Little in their 3 year graduate program allowed them to work through the attendant vulnerability and ambiguity accompanying the managing of mistakes. Hence, there were maladaptive aspects of the collectively acquired defense mechanisms. The whole system of accountability during graduate medical specialty training was found to be a variable, and at times, contradictory process. The housestaff ultimately sees itself as the sole arbiter of mistakes and their adjudication. Housestaffers come to feel that nobody can judge them or their decisions, least of all their patients. As they progress through training even internal accountability cohorts--the Department of Medicine, teaching faculty and peers--are discounted to varying degrees. They have developed a strong ideology justifying their jealously guarded autonomy. In the graduate medical socialization process, they have learned to believe that because they perceive themselves as their own worst judges, they should be their only judges. Because of the insularity and isolation of the housestaff subculture in a position of high prestige, with the power to make life and death decisions, they see themselves as singularly responsible for their actions and disparage any attempt by others to insert themselves into the process of accountability.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 19 (1984)
    Issue (Month): 2 (January)
    Pages: 135-146

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:2:p:135-146
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:2:p:135-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.