Health Expectations (Feb 2025)

A Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Statutory Duty of Candour in Victorian Health Services: Study Protocol

  • Reema Harrison,
  • Corey Adams,
  • Nabila Binte Haque,
  • Jennifer Morris,
  • Liat Watson,
  • Kristiina Siiankoski,
  • Ashfaq Chauhan,
  • Thrivedi Sesha Sai Danthakani,
  • Sarah Ameen,
  • Peter Hibbert,
  • Elizabeth Manias,
  • Nicole Youngs,
  • Lanii Birks,
  • Ramesh Walpola,
  • Sarah Fischer,
  • Jeffrey Braithwaite

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70180
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 28, no. 1
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT Background A statutory duty of candour (SDC) was introduced in 2022 in the Australian state of Victoria to increase openness and honesty with patients and families about healthcare adverse events. SDC requires each healthcare service entity by law to provide the patient or their family or carer who experiences an adverse event with; a written account of the facts, an apology, a description of the health service's response to the event, and the steps being taken to prevent reoccurrence. This research aims to evaluate the impacts of SDC in the 2 years since its implementation. Design A mixed‐methods sequential design will be employed, comprising a document literature review, document analysis, survey and interview data from patients, families and health service staff between 2024 and 2026. Discussion By conducting an evaluation of the impacts of SDC within 2 years of its implementation in Victorian health settings, this research will provide the first independent evidence of how the SDC is being used and affecting healthcare experiences. This research will use evaluation criteria from the UK's Duty of Candour review to gather data that can be compared with UK findings and the disclosure experiences of patients in New South Wales, Australia. Our findings will provide a vital contribution to the sparse evidence base about the SDC and its application in healthcare settings internationally. Patient or Public Contribution Three members of the public (JM, LW and KS) were involved in the design of the research proposal, reviewing and contributing to the ethics protocol, the protocol paper as authors and the protocol for the systematic review that has been developed as a basis for this research. These collaborators will contribute to be involved in all aspects of the research as part of the project team.

Keywords