Journals / Adli Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2

Midwives’ and Nurses’ Opinions and Experiences Regarding Medical Errors in Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinics: A Qualitative Study

Jinekoloji ve Obstetri Kliniğinde Çalışan Ebe ve Hemşirelerin Tıbbi Hatalara İlişkin Görüş ve Deneyimleri: Kalitatif Bir Çalışma

Sevda Karakaş(GUMUSHANE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF NURSING, DEPARTMENT OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS NURSING)0000-0003-4617-8798
Rojjin Mamuk(DOĞU AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, HEMŞİRELİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-3612-2010
Hatice Acar Bektaş(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, EBELİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7958-7868
Pages
243–255
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this respect, institutional strategies that strengthen patient safety culture, support error reporting, improve team communication, and support healthcare professionals in coping with burnout may be beneficial.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Obstetrics and gynecology clinics are among the clinical settings that require particular attention in terms of patient safety because of the complexity of care processes and the frequency of high-risk situations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Purposive sampling was used, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 healthcare professionals who met the inclusion criteria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this respect, institutional strategies that strengthen patient safety culture, support error reporting, improve team communication, and support healthcare professionals in coping with burnout may be beneficial.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ebe · Hemşire · Malpraktis

Abstract

Aim: Obstetrics and gynecology clinics are among the clinical settings that require particular attention in terms of patient safety because of the complexity of care processes and the frequency of high-risk situations. This study was conducted to explore the opinions and experiences of midwives and nurses regarding medical errors in obstetrics and gynecology clinics. Methods: This study was designed as a qualitative descriptive study. Purposive sampling was used, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 healthcare professionals who met the inclusion criteria. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Results: Two main themes were identified: “Structural and Professional Burden in the Care Process” and “Burnout and an Unsafe Working Climate.” Participants suggested that heavy workload, long working hours, inadequate team communication, incomplete patient handovers, and perceived insufficiency in professional knowledge and skills may contribute to the risk of medical errors. Feelings of fatigue, stress, sleep deprivation, lack of support, and fear or anxiety related to medical error reporting were also prominent. Conclusion: The findings suggest that the risk of medical errors in obstetrics and gynecology clinics should be considered not only in relation to individual factors, but also in the context of working conditions, team functioning, and organizational culture. In this respect, institutional strategies that strengthen patient safety culture, support error reporting, improve team communication, and support healthcare professionals in coping with burnout may be beneficial.

Özet

Amaç: Kadın hastalıkları ve doğum klinikleri, bakım süreçlerinin karmaşıklığı ve yüksek riskli klinik durumlar nedeniyle hasta güvenliği açısından dikkat gerektiren birimler arasında yer almaktadır. Bu araştırma, jinekoloji ve obstetri kliniğinde çalışan ebe ve hemşirelerin tıbbi hatalara ilişkin görüş ve deneyimlerini incelemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Yöntem: Araştırma nitel betimsel desende gerçekleştirilmiştir. Amaçlı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmış ve dahil edilme ölçütlerini karşılayan 15 sağlık çalışanı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Veriler indüktif içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular: Analiz sonucunda “Bakım Sürecinde Yapısal ve Mesleki Yük” ve “Tükenmişlik ve Güvensiz Çalışma İklimi” olmak üzere iki ana tema belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılar, iş yükü fazlalığı, uzun çalışma saatleri, ekip içi iletişim yetersizliği, hasta tesliminde eksiklikler ve mesleki bilgi-beceriye ilişkin yetersizlik algısının tıbbi hata riskini artırabileceğini ifade etmiştir. Ayrıca yorgunluk, stres, uykusuzluk, destek eksikliği ve tıbbi hata bildirimi sürecine ilişkin korku ve endişe duygularının öne çıktığı görülmüştür. Sonuç: Bulgular, kadın doğum kliniklerinde tıbbi hata riskinin yalnızca bireysel etkenlerle değil, çalışma koşulları, ekip işleyişi ve örgütsel kültür ile birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, hasta güvenliği kültürünü güçlendiren, hata bildirimini destekleyen, ekip içi iletişimi geliştiren ve çalışanların tükenmişlik ile baş etmesini destekleyen kurumsal uygulamaların yararlı olabileceği düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karakaş, S., Mamuk, R., Bektaş, H. A. (2026). Midwives’ and Nurses’ Opinions and Experiences Regarding Medical Errors in Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinics: A Qualitative Study. Adli Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2, 243–255. https://doi.org/10.61970/adlitip.1907248

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Kamijo K, Shibata A, Yamamoto N, Watanabe J, Watari T. Risk factor analysis of medical litigation outcomes in obstetrics and gynecology: a retrospective cohort study of 344 claims in Japan. J Forensic Leg Med. 2024;107:102752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2024.102752
  2. Pearlman MD. Patient safety in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(5):1266-71. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000241096.85499.A8
  3. White AA, Pichert JW, Bledsoe SH, Irwin C, Entman SS. Cause and effect analysis of closed claims in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(5 Pt 1):1031-1038. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000158864.09443.77
  4. World Health Organization. Patient safety: Global action on patient safety. World Health Assembly Report. Geneva: WHO; 2024.
  5. Uğurlu M, Vural G. Medical error status of nurses and midwives work in gynecology and obstetrics clinics and their opinions about the reasons. Bezmialem Science. 2020;8(4):403-410. https://doi.org/10.14235/bas.galenos.2019.3411
  6. Rodziewicz TL, Houseman B, Hipskind JE. Medical error reduction and prevention. StatPearls Publishing. [Updated 2024]. Erişilebilir: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499956/
  7. Baştürk Külahlı H, Çınar Pakyüz S. Hemşirelerin Tıbbi Hata Yapma Eğilimlerinin ve Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2024;40(1):91-101. https://doi.org/10.53490/egehemsire.1083338
  8. Hızarcı Ş, Bakır S, Kavlak O. Kadın hastalıkları ve doğum kliniğinde çalışan hemşire ve ebelerin tıbbi hatalarda hukuki sorumluluklara yönelik bilgi ve tutumlarının incelenmesi. Sağlık ve Hemşirelik Yönetimi Dergisi. 2021;8(2):221-231. https://doi.org/10.5222/SHYD.2021.64935
  9. Wang J, Cui Y, He L, Xu X, Yuan Z, Jin X, Li Z. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and risk factors among Chinese medical staff of obstetrics and gynecology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(6):562. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060562
  10. Brás CPC, Figueiredo MCAB, Ferreira MMC. Safety culture in maternity hospital: perception of nurse-midwives. J Adv Nurs. 2024;80(5):2091-2105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15969
  11. Panda S, Dash M, John J, Rath K, Debata A, Swain D, Mohanty K, Eustace-Cook J. Challenges faced by student nurses and midwives in clinical learning environment: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;101:104875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104875
  12. Schmiedhofer M, Derksen C, Keller FM, Dietl JE, Häussler F, Strametz R, Koester-400 Steinebach I, Lippke S. Barriers and facilitators of safe communication in obstetrics: 401 results from qualitative interviews with physicians, midwives and nurses. Int J Environ 402 Res Public Health 2021;18(3):915. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030915
  13. Elmir R, Pangas J, Dahlen H, Schmied V. A meta-ethnographic synthesis of midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of adverse labour and birth events. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(23-24):4184-4200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13965
  14. Elliott R, Fry M. Psychological capital, well-being, and patient safety attitudes of nurses and midwives: a cross-sectional survey. Nurs Health Sci. 2021;23(1):237-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12808
  15. Johnson J, Cameron L, Mitchinson L, Parmar M, Opio-Te G, Louch G, Grange A. An investigation into the relationships between bullying, discrimination, burnout and patient safety in nurses and midwives: is burnout a mediator? J Res Nurs. 2019;24(8):604-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987119880329
  16. Beecham E, Brady G, Iqbal S, Fatima Q, Arshad S, Bondaronek P, O’Carroll J, Glaser S, Siassakos D, Gilchrist K, Dorey J, Knagg R, Vindrola C. Systematic review of patient safety incident reporting practices in maternity care. BMJ Open Qual. 2025;14(4):e003432. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003432
  17. Aksan E, Altındiş S. Kalite bağlamında tıbbi hata raporlamaya ilişkin algılanan engellerin araştırılması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019;10(2):152-159. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.518098
  18. Kavuran E, Çetinkaya F. Bir üniversite hastanesinde çalışan hekim ve hemşirelerin tıbbi hata tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022;9(1):24-30. https://doi.org/10.31125/hunhemsire.1101872
  19. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health 2000;23(4):334-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4 3.0.CO;2-G
  20. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health 2010;33(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
  21. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62(1):107-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  22. Vears DF, Gillam L. Inductive content analysis: a guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus Health Prof Educ 2022;23(1):111-27. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544
  23. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015;42(5):533-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  24. Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract 2018;24(1):120-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
  25. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage; 1985. 435
  26. Ahmed SK. The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. J Med Surg Public 436 Health 2024;2:100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051 437
  27. Peters A, Palomo R, Pittet D. The great nursing brain drain and its effects on patient safety. 438 Antimicrob Resist
  28. Alharbi HF, Alzahrani J, Hamed A, Althagafi A, Alkarani AS. The experiences of newly graduated nurses during their first year of practice. Healthcare (Basel) 2023;11(14):2048. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11142048
  29. Aksoy SD, Dutucu N, Özdilek R, Bektaş HA. The effects of musculoskeletal disorders on professional quality of life among midwives working in delivery rooms. Indian J Occup Environ Med 2022;26(2):110-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_139_21