Fifteen-year trauma system performance analysis demonstrates optimal coverage for most severely injured patients and identifies a vulnerable population.

D. Ciesla,J. Tepas,Etienne E. Pracht,B. Langland‐Orban,J. Cha,L. Flint

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.033

2013-04-01

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Patient–Clinician Diagnostic Concordance upon Hospital Admission

Alyssa Lam,Savanna Plombon,Alison Garber,Pamela Garabedian,Ronen Rozenblum,Jacqueline A. Griffin,Jeffrey L. Schnipper,Stuart R. Lipsitz,David W. Bates,Anuj K. Dalal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788330

IF: 2.762

2024-09-20

Applied Clinical Informatics

Abstract:Objectives This study aimed to pilot an application-based patient diagnostic questionnaire (PDQ) and assess the concordance of the admission diagnosis reported by the patient and entered by the clinician. Methods Eligible patients completed the PDQ assessing patients' understanding of and confidence in the diagnosis 24 hours into hospitalization either independently or with assistance. Demographic data, the hospital principal problem upon admission, and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were retrieved from the electronic health record (EHR). Two physicians independently rated concordance between patient-reported diagnosis and clinician-entered principal problem as full, partial, or no. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographics for concordant (full) and nonconcordant (partial or no) outcome groups. Multivariable logistic regressions of PDQ questions and a priori selected EHR data as independent variables were conducted to predict nonconcordance. Results A total of 157 (77.7%) questionnaires were completed by 202 participants; 77 (49.0%), 46 (29.3%), and 34 (21.7%) were rated fully concordant, partially concordant, and not concordant, respectively. Cohen's kappa for agreement on preconsensus ratings by independent reviewers was 0.81 (0.74, 0.88). In multivariable analyses, patient-reported lack of confidence and undifferentiated symptoms (ICD-10 "R-code") for the principal problem were significantly associated with nonconcordance (partial or no concordance ratings) after adjusting for other PDQ questions (3.43 [1.30, 10.39], p = 0.02) and in a model using selected variables (4.02 [1.80, 9.55], p < 0.01), respectively. Conclusion About one-half of patient-reported diagnoses were concordant with the clinician-entered diagnosis on admission. An ICD-10 "R-code" entered as the principal problem and patient-reported lack of confidence may predict patient–clinician nonconcordance early during hospitalization via this approach. This study was reviewed and approved by the Mass General Brigham Human Research Committee. All authors have contributed sufficiently and meaningfully to the conception, design, and conduct of the study; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; and/or drafting, editing, and revising the manuscript. Received: 15 March 2024 Accepted: 16 June 2024 Article published online: 18 September 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

medical informatics
Using Patient Experience Surveys to Identify Potential Diagnostic Safety Breakdowns: A Mixed Methods Study

Kelley M. Baker,Mark Brahier,Mara Penne,Mary A. Hill,Siara Davis,William J. Gallagher,Kristen E. Miller,Kelly M. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000001283

2024-09-25

Journal of Patient Safety

Abstract:Diagnostic error is the "failure to establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem or to communicate that health problem to the patient," 1 and most people will experience a diagnostic error in their lifetime. 1 The problem is especially acute in ambulatory care, where 1 in 20 outpatients experiences a diagnostic error each year. 2 However, few health care organizations routinely measure diagnostic error. 3 Historically, diagnostic errors were recognized when an autopsy or malpractice claim highlighted the error. More recently, diagnostic error measurement has become more proactive, 4 but it remains challenging. 3

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Reflections on Diagnosis and Diagnostic Errors: a Survey of Internal Medicine Resident and Attending Physicians

Thilan P. Wijesekera,Lisa Sanders,Donna M. Windish

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05045-z

IF: 5.7

2019-05-15

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:From June 2016 through March 2017, we surveyed 484 residents and attendings from nine Connecticut internal medicine training programs. Surveys (electronic or paper) included single-answer, multiple choice questions about frequency of diagnostic uncertainty, diagnostic errors and considering harms and benefits of diagnostic testing (every patient, ≥ 2 times per day, once daily, ≥ 2 times per week, once weekly, once per month, and never), source of diagnostic errors (access, history, physical, testing, assessment, referral, follow-up), factors negatively impacting diagnosis (time, electronic health record and patient factors:...

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Patient and care partner assessments of diagnostic excellence in the emergency department: A cognitive interview study

Aaron A Wiegand,Vadim Dukhanin,Natalia Gonzalez,Kathryn M McDonald,Susan Peterson,Kelly T Gleason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100129

2023-05-04

Abstract:Background: Diagnostic excellence encompasses both receiving an accurate and timely explanation of a health problem that was communicated well, and the process it took to get to the correct diagnosis. Directly eliciting patients' perceptions of their diagnostic experience and outcomes after emergency visits is a promising method of assessing diagnostic excellence. However, little is known about how patients interpret and respond to questions about their diagnostic experiences and outcomes. Objective: To analyze patient and care partners' interpretation of questions capturing patient-reported diagnostic excellence in emergency settings. Design: Cognitive interviews using think-aloud and probing methods. Settings: Interviews were conducted virtually and via phone calls. Participants were patients or care partners of patients recently discharged from three emergency departments within a single academic health system in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US. Participants: 15 patients and care partners, 18 years or older, with recent emergency department experiences. Methods: Qualitative analysis using a deductive approach was used to code transcripts and analyze participant responses to Patient-Report to Improve Diagnostic Excellence in Emergency Department (PRIME-ED) questionnaire items. Themes of patient and care partners' questionnaire interpretations are presented descriptively. Results: 80% of participants were female, 47% were between the ages of 18-24 years, 47% of participants were White, and 7% were Hispanic/Latino. Participants shared their interpretations of diagnostic excellence following PRIME-ED domains: diagnostic accuracy and care team skills, their comprehension of the diagnosis, provider communication of uncertainty, and quality of diagnostic communication, including whether they felt the care team communicated well, adapted communication to their needs, listened and took concerns seriously, treated them as an equal, and provided clear, sufficient, and functional communication about follow-up steps. Responses indicated that patients and care partners can identify diagnostic errors, rationalize why their diagnosis was inaccurate, and assess whether diagnostic excellence was achieved. Respondents identified factors that contributed to their assessments of diagnostic accuracy and the quality of diagnostic communication. The quality of diagnostic communication contributed to patient perception of diagnostic accuracy and understanding of the diagnosis. Conclusions: Patient report is a useful tool for assessing diagnostic excellence in emergency settings. Our patient and care partners describe how they assess diagnostic excellence in the emergency department.Registration: N/A.Tweetable abstract: Patients and care partners provide accessible and useful information to assess diagnostic practices and diagnostic excellence in emergency departments.
Recommendations for using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to help measure and improve diagnostic safety

Hardeep Singh,Arushi Khanna,Christiane Spitzmueller,Ashley N.D. Meyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0012

2019-07-09

Diagnosis

Abstract:Abstract The medical record continues to be one of the most useful and accessible sources of information to examine the diagnostic process. However, medical record review studies of diagnostic errors have often used subjective judgments and found low inter-rater agreement among reviewers when determining the presence or absence of diagnostic error. In our previous work, we developed a structured data-collection instrument, called the Safer Dx Instrument, consisting of objective criteria to improve the accuracy of assessing diagnostic errors in primary care. This paper proposes recommendations on how clinicians and health care organizations could use the Revised Safer Dx Instrument in identifying and understanding missed opportunities to make correct and timely diagnoses. The instrument revisions addressed both methodological and implementation issues identified during initial use and included refinements to the instrument to allow broader application across all health care settings. In addition to leveraging knowledge from piloting the instrument in several health care settings, we gained insights from multiple researchers who had used the instrument in studies involving emergency care, inpatient care and intensive care unit settings. This allowed us to enhance and extend the scope of this previously validated data collection instrument. In this paper, we describe the refinement process and provide recommendations for application and use of the Revised Safer Dx Instrument across a broad range of health care settings. The instrument can help users identify potential diagnostic errors in a standardized way for further analysis and safety improvement efforts as well as provide data for clinician feedback and reflection. With wider adoption and use by clinicians and health systems, the Revised Safer Dx Instrument could help propel the science of measuring and reducing diagnostic errors forward.
Development and Psychometric Analysis of a Patient-Reported Measure of Diagnostic Excellence for Emergency and Urgent Care Settings

Kelly T. Gleason,Vadim Dukhanin,Susan K. Peterson,Natalia Gonzalez,J.M. Austin,K.M. McDonald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000001271

2024-09-01

Journal of Patient Safety

Abstract:The need to improve diagnostic quality is well-documented, with diagnostic errors identified as the most deadly and costly of medical errors. 1,2 However, efforts to monitor diagnostic performance have been limited, 3–5 and evaluation methods are needed for organizations to learn and improve their diagnostic safety. 4 Current attempts to measure diagnostic quality often rely on administrative data with little to no patient-reported data. 5–7 The experience of the patient through the diagnostic process and outcome is essential to understanding diagnostic quality, 8 which goes beyond whether the diagnosis was accurate and timely. 9 Patient-reported diagnostic excellence incorporates whether the patient was engaged in the process, whether they felt they understood the rationale behind the clinical steps done to establish a diagnosis, and whether they understood the diagnosis and the next steps. 10–12 The patient (or care partner) is the only one able to inform whether they understood the diagnosis and if they were able to share and understand all relevant information during the diagnostic process. They are also often the only one who can inform whether their health status outside of medical encounters progressed as expected based on the diagnostic explanation.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
[Advances in application of sildenafil to erectile dysfunction].

Zheng Li,Zheng-mu Wu,Yi-xin Wang

2005-06-01

Abstract:Since the worldwide introduction of sildenafil in 1998, 23 million patients with ED have been treated with the drug, and the accumulated experiences have proved its safety and efficacy. This article presents a review about the action mechanism and metabolic process of sildenafil, with a particular focus on the application of sildenafil to ED diagnosis, the curative effect of its daily use on ED, the standard treatment, combined therapy and progressive protocol with sildenafil for ED and its complications, along with such safety aspect as its effect on the sight.
What's going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process

Stephen K Liu,Fabienne Bourgeois,Joe Dong,Kendall Harcourt,Elizabeth Lowe,Liz Salmi,Eric J Thomas,Natalie Riblet,Sigall K Bell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0075

2023-12-20

Abstract:Objectives: Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on close collaboration between patients/families and clinicians. Just as patients have unique insights into diagnostic breakdowns, positive patient feedback may also generate broader perspectives on what constitutes a "good" diagnostic process (DxP). Methods: We evaluated patient/family feedback on "what's going well" as part of an online pre-visit survey designed to engage patients/families in the DxP. Patients/families living with chronic conditions with visits in three urban pediatric subspecialty clinics (site 1) and one rural adult primary care clinic (site 2) were invited to complete the survey between December 2020 and March 2022. We adapted the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to conduct a qualitative analysis on a subset of patient/family responses with ≥20 words. Results: In total, 7,075 surveys were completed before 18,129 visits (39 %) at site 1, and 460 surveys were completed prior to 706 (65 %) visits at site 2. Of all participants, 1,578 volunteered positive feedback, ranging from 1-79 words. Qualitative analysis of 272 comments with ≥20 words described: Relationships (60 %), Clinical Care (36 %), and Environment (4 %). Compared to primary care, subspecialty comments showed the same overall rankings. Within Relationships, patients/families most commonly noted: thorough and competent attention (46 %), clear communication and listening (41 %) and emotional support and human connection (39 %). Within Clinical Care, patients highlighted: timeliness (31 %), effective clinical management (30 %), and coordination of care (25 %). Conclusions: Patients/families valued relationships with clinicians above all else in the DxP, emphasizing the importance of supporting clinicians to nurture effective relationships and relationship-centered care in the DxP.
Monitoring Diagnostic Safety Risks in Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Machine Learning Study

Moein Enayati,Mustafa Sir,Xingyu Zhang,Sarah J Parker,Elizabeth Duffy,Hardeep Singh,Prashant Mahajan,Kalyan S Pasupathy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/24642

2021-06-14

Abstract:Background: Diagnostic decision making, especially in emergency departments, is a highly complex cognitive process that involves uncertainty and susceptibility to errors. A combination of factors, including patient factors (eg, history, behaviors, complexity, and comorbidity), provider-care team factors (eg, cognitive load and information gathering and synthesis), and system factors (eg, health information technology, crowding, shift-based work, and interruptions) may contribute to diagnostic errors. Using electronic triggers to identify records of patients with certain patterns of care, such as escalation of care, has been useful to screen for diagnostic errors. Once errors are identified, sophisticated data analytics and machine learning techniques can be applied to existing electronic health record (EHR) data sets to shed light on potential risk factors influencing diagnostic decision making. Objective: This study aims to identify variables associated with diagnostic errors in emergency departments using large-scale EHR data and machine learning techniques. Methods: This study plans to use trigger algorithms within EHR data repositories to generate a large data set of records that are labeled trigger-positive or trigger-negative, depending on whether they meet certain criteria. Samples from both data sets will be validated using medical record reviews, upon which we expect to find a higher number of diagnostic safety events in the trigger-positive subset. Machine learning will be used to evaluate relationships between certain patient factors, provider-care team factors, and system-level risk factors and diagnostic safety signals in the statistically matched groups of trigger-positive and trigger-negative charts. Results: This federally funded study was approved by the institutional review board of 2 academic medical centers with affiliated community hospitals. Trigger queries are being developed at both organizations, and sample cohorts will be labeled using the triggers. Machine learning techniques such as association rule mining, chi-square automated interaction detection, and classification and regression trees will be used to discover important variables that could be incorporated within future clinical decision support systems to help identify and reduce risks that contribute to diagnostic errors. Conclusions: The use of large EHR data sets and machine learning to investigate risk factors (related to the patient, provider-care team, and system-level) in the diagnostic process may help create future mechanisms for monitoring diagnostic safety. International registered report identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/24642.
The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study

Yang Chen,Myura Nagendran,Yakup Kilic,Dominic Cavlan,Adam Feather,Mark Westwood,Edward Rowland,Charles Gutteridge,Pier D Lambiase

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583211019134

IF: 3.778

2021-06-11

Health Information Management Journal

Abstract:Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians’ perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue. Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty. Method: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group. Results: During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research. Conclusion: The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses. Implications: Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.

medical informatics,health policy & services
"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process

Mary A. Hill,Tess Coppinger,Kimia Sedig,William J. Gallagher,Kelley M. Baker,Helen Haskell,Kristen E. Miller,Kelly M. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000001273

2024-09-13

Journal of Patient Safety

Abstract:Diagnostic error, defined as the "failure to a) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem or b) communicate that explanation to the patient," is a global patient safety challenge. 1–3 Evidence suggests diagnostic error accounts for more serious harm than any other type of medical error 4 and leads to approximately 795,000 serious harm incidents in the United States each year. 5 In the ambulatory care setting, 1 in 20 patients experiences a diagnostic error. 6

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
[Characteristics of the DNA of Astasia longa and Euglena gracilis phytoflagellates].

N. A. Shanina,A. L. Mazin,M. Pakhomova,G. Zaitseva

Abstract:
3-48-03 Asymptomatic electrophysiologic carpal tunnel syndrome in diabetics: Entrapment or polyneuropathy

W. Kim,S. Lee,I. Sunwoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-510X(97)85859-5

1997-09-01

Journal of Neurological Sciences

Abstract:
Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study

Timothy J. Sanford,Pranav Kaul,Danielle M. McCarthy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15047

2024-11-16

Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Background The 2022 study on diagnostic error in the emergency department (ED) published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that one in every 18 ED patients is misdiagnosed. The report was methodologically critiqued by emergency physicians and researchers. However, little is known about public perception of error in the ED. We sought to characterize public response to AHRQ's publication. Methods A search was conducted for online news articles published December 2022 reporting the AHRQ study and containing "public comment" sections. Verbatim comments and relevant characteristics were collected. Three coders completed content analysis and resolved any differences. Descriptive statistics and themes are reported. Results Fifteen online articles were reviewed; three had public comment sections (New York Times, DailyMail, and Boston Globe). There were 553 unique user comments; 293 were original comments (53%) and 260 were replies to comments (47%). The 260 replies were in response to 113 original comments, with the remaining original comments having 0 replies (n = 180). Of the 202 commenters who identified a personal role in a health care encounter, 70 (35%) identified as patients and 68 (34%) identified as physicians. Comments centered on seven major themes: (1) negative personal experiences, (2) reframing study conclusions, (3) sense of decline in training standards, (4) internal stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (5) external stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (6) suggested solutions, and (7) role of the ED in diagnosis. Conclusions The news coverage of AHRQ's report provided individuals a platform to share their perspectives. Many comments reflected a nuanced understanding of the role of emergency care and the stressors of the ED environment. Despite questions about the report's accuracy, there were many individuals who shared personal negative experiences suggesting that the public may feel directly impacted by error in the ED.

emergency medicine
Identifying Interventions to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Participatory Design Study

Woosuk Seo,Sun Young Park,Zhan Zhang,Hardeep Singh,Kalyan Pasupathy,Prashant Mahajan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/55357

2024-06-21

Abstract:Background: Emergency departments (EDs) are complex and fast-paced clinical settings where a diagnosis is made in a time-, information-, and resource-constrained context. Thus, it is predisposed to suboptimal diagnostic outcomes, leading to errors and subsequent patient harm. Arriving at a timely and accurate diagnosis is an activity that occurs after an effective collaboration between the patient or caregiver and the clinical team within the ED. Interventions such as novel sociotechnical solutions are needed to mitigate errors and risks. Objective: This study aims to identify challenges that frontline ED health care providers and patients face in the ED diagnostic process and involve them in co-designing technological interventions to enhance diagnostic excellence. Methods: We will conduct separate sessions with ED health care providers and patients, respectively, to assess various design ideas and use a participatory design (PD) approach for technological interventions to improve ED diagnostic safety. In the sessions, various intervention ideas will be presented to participants through storyboards. Based on a preliminary interview study with ED patients and health care providers, we created intervention storyboards that illustrate different care contexts in which ED health care providers or patients experience challenges and show how each intervention would address the specific challenge. By facilitating participant group discussion, we will reveal the overlap between the needs of the design research team observed during fieldwork and the needs perceived by target users (ie, participants) in their own experience to gain their perspectives and assessment on each idea. After the group discussions, participants will rank the ideas and co-design to improve our interventions. Data sources will include audio and video recordings, design sketches, and ratings of intervention design ideas from PD sessions. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study. This foundational work will help identify the needs and challenges of key stakeholders in the ED diagnostic process and develop initial design ideas, specifically focusing on sociotechnological ideas for patient-, health care provider-, and system-level interventions for improving patient safety in EDs. Results: The recruitment of participants for ED health care providers and patients is complete. We are currently preparing for PD sessions. The first results from design sessions with health care providers will be reported in fall 2024. Conclusions: The study findings will provide unique insights for designing sociotechnological interventions to support ED diagnostic processes. By inviting frontline health care providers and patients into the design process, we anticipate obtaining unique insights into the ED diagnostic process and designing novel sociotechnical interventions to enhance patient safety. Based on this study's collected data and intervention ideas, we will develop prototypes of multilevel interventions that can be tested and subsequently implemented for patients, health care providers, or hospitals as a system. International registered report identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/55357.
Leveraging the electronic health record to identify delivery of goal-concordant care

Catherine L Auriemma,Anne Song,Lake Walsh,Jason Han,Sophia Yapalater,Alexander Bain,Lindsay Haines,Stefania Scott,Casey Whitman,Stephanie P Taylor,Gary E Weissman,Matthew J Gonzales,Roshanthi Weerasinghe,Staci J Wendt,Katherine R Courtright

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.24.24314226

2024-09-24

Abstract:Goal-concordant care (GCC) is recognized as the highest quality of care and most important outcome measure for serious illness research, yet there is no agreed-upon or validated method to measure it. Assess feasibility of measuring GCC using clinical documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). Retrospective chart review study. Participants: Adults with ≥50% predicted six-month mortality risk admitted to three urban hospitals in a single health system. All participants had goals-of-care (GOC) discussions documented in the EHR 6 months before and 6 months after admission manually classified into one of four categories of goals: (1) comfort-focused, (2) maintain or improve function, (3) life-extension, or (4) unclear. Pairs of physician-coders independently reviewed EHR notes from 6 months before through 6 months after admission to identify and classify care received between each documented GOC discussion into one of the four goals categories. Epochs between GOC discussions were then coded as goal-concordant if GOC and care received classifications were aligned, goal-discordant if they were misaligned, or uncertain if either classification was unclear or not documented. Coder inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappa statistics. Inter-rater reliability for classifying care received was almost perfect (95% interrater agreement; Cohen's kappa=0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99). Of 398 total epochs across 109 unique patients, 198 (50%) were goal-concordant, 112 (28%) were of uncertain concordance, and 88 (22%) were goal-discordant. Eighty (73%) patients received care of uncertain concordance during at least one epoch. Forty-eight (44%) patients received goal-discordant care during at least one epoch. Clinician chart review was a feasible method for measuring GCC and can inform natural language processing and machine learning methods to improve the clinical and research utility of this method. More work is needed to understand the driving factors underlying the high rate of uncertain concordance and goal-discordant care identified among this seriously ill cohort.

Palliative Medicine
Assessment of Patients' Ability to Review Electronic Health Record Information to Identify Potential Errors: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey

Lisa Freise,Ana Luisa Neves,Kelsey Flott,Paul Harrison,John Kelly,Ara Darzi,Erik K Mayer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/19074

2021-02-26

Abstract:Background: Sharing personal health information positively impacts quality of care across several domains, and particularly, safety and patient-centeredness. Patients may identify and flag up inconsistencies in their electronic health records (EHRs), leading to improved information quality and patient safety. However, in order to identify potential errors, patients need to be able to understand the information contained in their EHRs. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patients' perceptions of their ability to understand the information contained in their EHRs and to analyze the main barriers to their understanding. Additionally, the main types of patient-reported errors were characterized. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken between March 2017 and September 2017. A total of 682 registered users of the Care Information Exchange, a patient portal, with at least one access during the time of the study were invited to complete the survey containing both structured (multiple choice) and unstructured (free text) questions. The survey contained questions on patients' perceived ability to understand their EHR information and therefore, to identify errors. Free-text questions allowed respondents to expand on the reasoning for their structured responses and provide more detail about their perceptions of EHRs and identifying errors within them. Qualitative data were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers using the framework analysis method in order to identify emerging themes. Results: A total of 210 responses were obtained. The majority of the responses (123/210, 58.6%) reported understanding of the information. The main barriers identified were information-related (medical terminology and knowledge and interpretation of test results) and technology-related (user-friendliness of the portal, information display). Inconsistencies relating to incomplete and incorrect information were reported in 12.4% (26/210) of the responses. Conclusions: While the majority of the responses affirmed the understanding of the information contained within the EHRs, both technology and information-based barriers persist. There is a potential to improve the system design to better support opportunities for patients to identify errors. This is with the aim of improving the accuracy, quality, and timeliness of the information held in the EHRs and a mechanism to further engage patients in their health care.
Innate Immunity and Periparturient Well-Being of Late Gestation Holstein Heifers Fed Omnigen-AF® for 60 Days Prepartum

S. Nickerson

Abstract:
Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings

Caitríona Cox,Thea Hatfield,Janet Willars,Zoë Fritz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14180

2024-08-27

Health Expectations

Abstract:Background and Aims Communication is important in determining how patients understand the diagnostic process. Empirical studies involving direct observation of communication within diagnostic processes are relatively limited. This ethnographic study aimed to identify communicative practices facilitating or inhibiting shared understanding between patients and doctors in UK acute secondary care settings. Methods Data were collected in acute medical sectors of three English hospitals. Researchers observed doctors as they assessed patients; semistructured interviews were undertaken with doctors and patients directly afterwards. Patients were also interviewed 2–4 weeks later. Case studies of individual encounters (consisting of these interviews and observational notes) were created, and were cross‐examined by an interdisciplinary team to identify divergence and convergence between doctors' and patients' narratives. These data were analysed thematically. Results We conducted 228 h of observation, 24 doctor interviews, 32 patient interviews and 15 patient follow‐up interviews. Doctors varied in their communication. Patient diagnostic understanding was sometimes misaligned with that of their doctors; interviews revealed that they often made incorrect assumptions to make sense of the fragmented information received. Thematic analysis identified communicative practices that seemed to facilitate, or inhibit, shared diagnostic understanding between patient and doctor, revealing three themes: (1) communicating what has been understood from the medical record, (2) sharing the thought process and diagnostic reasoning and (3) closing the loop and discharge communication. Shared understanding was best fostered by clear communication about the diagnostic process, what had already been done and what was achievable in acute settings. Written information presents an underutilised tool in such communication. Conclusions In UK acute secondary settings, the provision of more information about the diagnostic process often fostered shared understanding between doctor and patient, helping to minimise the confusion and dissatisfaction that can result from misaligned expectations or conclusions about the diagnosis, and the uncertainty therein. Patient/Public Contribution A patient and public involvement group (of a range of ages and backgrounds) was consulted. They contributed to the design of the protocol, including the timing of interviews, the acceptability of a follow‐up telephone interview, the development of the interview guides and the participant information sheets.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Towards augmenting structured EHR data: a comparison of manual chart review and patient self-report

Thad Jarmon,N. Weiskopf,Joe Hannan,D. Dorr,A. Cohen

Abstract:Structured electronic health record (EHR) data are often used for quality measurement and improvement, clinical research, and other secondary uses. These data, however, are known to suffer from quality problems. There may be value in augmenting structured EHR data to improve data quality, thereby improving the reliability and validity of the conclusions drawn from those data. Focusing on five diagnoses related to cardiovascular care, this paper considers the added value of two alternative data sources: manual chart abstraction and patient self-report. We assess the overall agreement between structured EHR problem list data, abstracted EHR data, and patient self- report; and explore possible causes of disagreement between those sources. Our findings suggest that both chart abstraction and patient self-report contain significantly more diagnoses than the problem list, but that the information they capture is different. Methods for collecting and validating self-reported medical data require further consideration and exploration.

Computer Science,Medicine

Fifteen-year trauma system performance analysis demonstrates optimal coverage for most severely injured patients and identifies a vulnerable population.

Patient–Clinician Diagnostic Concordance upon Hospital Admission

Using Patient Experience Surveys to Identify Potential Diagnostic Safety Breakdowns: A Mixed Methods Study

Reflections on Diagnosis and Diagnostic Errors: a Survey of Internal Medicine Resident and Attending Physicians

Patient and care partner assessments of diagnostic excellence in the emergency department: A cognitive interview study

Recommendations for using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to help measure and improve diagnostic safety

Development and Psychometric Analysis of a Patient-Reported Measure of Diagnostic Excellence for Emergency and Urgent Care Settings

[Advances in application of sildenafil to erectile dysfunction].

What's going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process

Monitoring Diagnostic Safety Risks in Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Machine Learning Study

The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study

"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process

[Characteristics of the DNA of Astasia longa and Euglena gracilis phytoflagellates].

3-48-03 Asymptomatic electrophysiologic carpal tunnel syndrome in diabetics: Entrapment or polyneuropathy

Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study

Identifying Interventions to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Participatory Design Study

Leveraging the electronic health record to identify delivery of goal-concordant care

Assessment of Patients' Ability to Review Electronic Health Record Information to Identify Potential Errors: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey

Innate Immunity and Periparturient Well-Being of Late Gestation Holstein Heifers Fed Omnigen-AF® for 60 Days Prepartum

Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings

Towards augmenting structured EHR data: a comparison of manual chart review and patient self-report