Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The article [1] is very interesting and instructive but there is no mention that mistakes and suboptimal practice may be directly or indirectly caused by conflicts of interest and/or negligence. The recommendations “Start with a colleague to colleague discussion” and “Encourage them to learn from it” [1] are good only for bona fide errors. Otherwise, the comments should be public. “The use of a transparent collective approach is the only way…” [1].
The most difficult issue is to say that a senior colleague, head of the department or institution, makes mistakes. The psychologically easiest way is to say at an informal party: “And what I always wanted to say is…”, then continue in an objective and constructive manner avoiding adjectives. Certainly, it is preferable to do the same at a professional meeting. In this connection, it is important to dispose of the relevant information [1] and evidence. In keeping with the idea that mistakes in medical practice, research and healthcare policies have to do with the patients’ health and/or misuse of public funds, other advisable steps include letters (signed or anonymous) to health care authorities as well as publications e.g. [2].
1. Rimmer A. How do I tell a colleague they have made a mistake? BMJ 2020;368:m1035.
2. Jargin SV. Invasive procedures with questionable indications: Prevention of a negligent custom. J Surg Open Access 2017;3(5)
Re: How do I tell a colleague they have made a mistake?
Dear Editor,
The article [1] is very interesting and instructive but there is no mention that mistakes and suboptimal practice may be directly or indirectly caused by conflicts of interest and/or negligence. The recommendations “Start with a colleague to colleague discussion” and “Encourage them to learn from it” [1] are good only for bona fide errors. Otherwise, the comments should be public. “The use of a transparent collective approach is the only way…” [1].
The most difficult issue is to say that a senior colleague, head of the department or institution, makes mistakes. The psychologically easiest way is to say at an informal party: “And what I always wanted to say is…”, then continue in an objective and constructive manner avoiding adjectives. Certainly, it is preferable to do the same at a professional meeting. In this connection, it is important to dispose of the relevant information [1] and evidence. In keeping with the idea that mistakes in medical practice, research and healthcare policies have to do with the patients’ health and/or misuse of public funds, other advisable steps include letters (signed or anonymous) to health care authorities as well as publications e.g. [2].
1. Rimmer A. How do I tell a colleague they have made a mistake? BMJ 2020;368:m1035.
2. Jargin SV. Invasive procedures with questionable indications: Prevention of a negligent custom. J Surg Open Access 2017;3(5)
Competing interests: No competing interests