Search

BackgroundPatients are increasingly using the Internet to communicate with health care providers and access general and personal health information. Missed test results have been identified as a critical safety issue with studies showing up to 75% of tests for emergency department (ED) patients not being followed-up. One strategy that could reduce the likelihood of important results being missed is for ED patients to have direct access to their test results. This could be achieved electronically using a patient portal tied to the hospital’s electronic medical record or accessed from the relevant laboratory information system. Patients have expressed interest in accessing test results directly, but there have been no reported studies on emergency physicians’ opinions. ObjectiveThe aim was to explore emergency physicians’ current practices of test result notification and attitudes to direct patient notification of clinically significant abnormal and normal test results. MethodsA cross-sectional survey was self-administered by senior emergency physicians (site A: n=50; site B: n=39) at 2 large public metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia. Outcome measures included current practices for notification of results (timing, methods, and responsibilities) and concerns with direct notification. ResultsThe response rate was 69% (61/89). More than half of the emergency physicians (54%, 33/61) were uncomfortable with patients receiving direct notification of abnormal test results. A similar proportion (57%, 35/61) was comfortable with direct notification of normal test results. Physicians were more likely to agree with direct notification of normal test results if they believed it would reduce their workload (OR 5.72, 95% CI 1.14-39.76). Main concerns were that patients could be anxious (85%, 52/61), confused (92%, 56/61), and lacking in the necessary expertise to interpret their results (90%, 55/61). ConclusionsAlthough patients’ direct access to test results could serve as a safety net reducing the likelihood of abnormal results being missed, emergency physicians’ concerns need further exploration: which results are suitable and the timing and method of direct release to patients. Methods of access, including secure Web-based patient portals with drill-down facilities providing test descriptions and result interpretations, or laboratories sending results directly to patients, need evaluation to ensure patient safety is not compromised and the processes fit with ED clinician and laboratory work practices and patient needs.

Diagnostic error research has largely focused on individual clinicians' decision making and system design, while overlooking information from patients. We analyzed a unique new data source of patient- and family-reported error narratives to explore factors that contribute to diagnostic errors. From reports of adverse medical events submitted in the period January 2010-February 2016, we identified 184 unique patient narratives of diagnostic error. Problems related to patient-physician interactions emerged as major contributors. Our analysis identified 224 instances of behavioral and interpersonal factors that reflected unprofessional clinician behavior, including ignoring patients' knowledge, disrespecting patients, failing to communicate, and manipulation or deception. Patients' perspectives can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of why diagnostic errors occur and help develop strategies for mitigation. Health systems should develop and implement formal programs to collect patients' experiences with the diagnostic process and use these data to promote an organizational culture that strives to reduce harm from diagnostic error.

BackgroundDiagnostic errors pose a significant threat to patient safety but little is known about public perceptions of diagnostic errors. A study published in BMJ Quality & Safety in 2014 estimated that diagnostic errors affect at least 5% of US adults (or 12 million) per year. We sought to explore online public reactions to media reports on the reported frequency of diagnostic errors in the US adult population.MethodsWe searched the World Wide Web for any news article reporting findings from the study. We then gathered all the online comments made in response to the news articles to evaluate public reaction to the newly reported diagnostic error frequency (n=241). Two coders conducted content analyses of the comments and an experienced qualitative researcher resolved differences.ResultsOverall, there were few comments made regarding the frequency of diagnostic errors. However, in response to the media coverage, 44 commenters shared personal experiences of diagnostic errors. Additionally, commentary centered on diagnosis-related quality of care as affected by two emergent categories: (1) US health care providers (n=79; 63 commenters) and (2) US health care reform-related policies, most commonly the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and insurance/reimbursement issues (n=62; 47 commenters).ConclusionThe public appears to have substantial concerns about the impact of the ACA and other reform initiatives on the diagnosis-related quality of care. However, policy discussions on diagnostic errors are largely absent from the current national conversation on improving quality and safety. Because outpatient diagnostic errors have emerged as a major safety concern, researchers and policymakers should consider evaluating the effects of policy and practice changes on diagnostic accuracy.

BackgroundAlthough misdiagnosis in the outpatient setting leads to significant patient harm and wasted resources, it is not well studied. The authors surveyed primary care physicians (PCPs) about barriers to timely diagnosis in the outpatient setting and assessed their perceptions of diagnostic difficulty.MethodsSurveys of PCPs practicing in an integrated health system across 10 geographically dispersed states in 2005. The survey elicited information on key cognitive failures (including in clinical knowledge or judgement) for a specific case, and solicited strategies for reducing diagnostic delays. Content analysis was used to categorise cognitive failures and strategies for improvement. The authors examined the extent and predictors of diagnostic difficulty, defined as reporting >5% patients difficult to diagnose.ResultsOf 1817 physicians surveyed, 1054 (58%) responded; 848 (80%) respondents primarily practiced in outpatient settings and had an assigned patient panel (inclusion sample). Inadequate knowledge (19.9%) was the most commonly reported cognitive factor. Half reported >5% of their patients were difficult to diagnose; more experienced physicians reported less diagnostic difficulty. In adjusted analyses, problems with information processing (information availability and time to review it) and the referral process were associated with greater diagnostic difficulty. Strategies for improvement most commonly involved workload issues (panel size, non-visit tasks).ConclusionsPCPs report a variety of reasons for diagnostic difficulties in primary care practice. In this study, knowledge gaps appear to be a prominent concern. Interventions that address these gaps as well as practice level issues such as time to process diagnostic information and better subspecialty input may reduce diagnostic difficulties in primary care.

Objectives Systemic issues can adversely affect the diagnostic process. Many system-related barriers can be masked by 'resilient' actions of frontline providers (ie, actions supporting the safe delivery of care in the presence of pressures that the system cannot readily adapt to). We explored system barriers and resilient actions of primary care providers (PCPs) in the diagnostic evaluation of cancer. Methods We conducted a secondary data analysis of interviews of PCPs involved in diagnostic evaluation of 29 lung and colorectal cancer cases. Cases covered a range of diagnostic timeliness and were analysed to identify barriers for rapid diagnostic evaluation, and PCPs' actions involving elements of resilience addressing those barriers. We rated these actions according to whether they were usual or extraordinary for typical PCP work. Results Resilient actions and associated barriers were found in 59% of the cases, in all ranges of timeliness, with 40% involving actions rated as beyond typical. Most of the barriers were related to access to specialty services and coordination with patients. Many of the resilient actions involved using additional communication channels to solicit cooperation from other participants in the diagnostic process. Discussion Diagnostic evaluation of cancer involves several resilient actions by PCPs targeted at system deficiencies. PCPs' actions can sometimes mitigate system barriers to diagnosis, and thereby impact the sensitivity of 'downstream' measures (eg, delays) in detecting barriers. While resilient actions might enable providers to mitigate system deficiencies in the short run, they can be resource intensive and potentially unsustainable. They complement, rather than substitute for, structural remedies to improve system performance. Measures to detect and fix system performance issues targeted by these resilient actions could facilitate diagnostic safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors offers insight on whether patients should get direct access to their laboratory test results and the potential effects of this approach. They raise concern on the unlikelihood for patients to receive any coaching or personalized information on interpretation of results, and on patient responsibility for follow-up. They point out the importance of face-to-face communication with the physician to help interpret laboratory results, especially for patients with mental health conditions.

Many health care institutions are implementing patient portals that allow patients to track and maintain their personal health information, mostly in response to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act requirements. Test results review is an area of high interest to patients and provides an opportunity to foster their involvement in preventing abnormal test results from being overlooked, a common patient safety concern. However, little is known about how patients engage with portals to review abnormal results and which strategies could facilitate that interaction in order to ensure safe follow-up on abnormalities. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore patients' experiences related to abnormal test result notifications through patient portals. The authors conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 participants, patients and primary caregivers, between February 2014 and October 2014. Using content analysis, the authors explored patient experiences accessing abnormal test results through their portals. Respondents strongly favored access to all types of abnormal test results, but they raised several concerns including need for more timely notification and not being able to interpret the exact relevance of the result. Respondents' personal experiences with physicians, test result notification, and the portal heavily influenced respondents' notification preferences. Patient experiences with portals could be improved by development of strategies to help patients understand and manage the information received. These findings suggest important considerations for health professionals and institutions aiming to better engage patients in follow-up of their test results.

Delays in diagnosis and treatment are widely considered to be threats to outpatient safety. However, few studies have identified and described what factors contribute to delays that might result in patient harm in the outpatient setting. We analyzed 111 root cause analysis reports that investigated such delays and were submitted to the Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety in the period 2005-12. The most common contributing factors noted in the reports included coordination problems resulting from inadequate follow-up planning, delayed scheduling for unspecified reasons, inadequate tracking of test results, and the absence of a system to track patients in need of short-term follow-up. Other contributing factors were team-level decision-making problems resulting from miscommunication of urgency between providers and providers' lack of awareness of or knowledge about a patient's situation; and communication failures among providers, patients, and other health care team members. Our findings suggest that to support care goals in the Affordable Care Act and the National Quality Strategy, even relatively sophisticated electronic health record systems will require enhancements. At the same time, policy initiatives should support programs to implement, and perhaps reward the use of, more rigorous interprofessional teamwork principles to improve outpatient communication and coordination.

Background: Diagnostic errors in primary care are harmful but difficult to detect. The authors tested an electronic health record (EHR)-based method to detect diagnostic errors in routine primary care practice., Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study of primary care visit records 'triggered' through electronic queries for possible evidence of diagnostic errors: Trigger 1: A primary care index visit followed by unplanned hospitalisation within 14 days and Trigger 2: A primary care index visit followed by ≥1 unscheduled visit(s) within 14 days. Control visits met neither criterion. Electronic trigger queries were applied to EHR repositories at two large healthcare systems between 1 October 2006 and 30 September 2007. Blinded physician-reviewers independently determined presence or absence of diagnostic errors in selected triggered and control visits. An error was defined as a missed opportunity to make or pursue the correct diagnosis when adequate data were available at the index visit. Disagreements were resolved by an independent third reviewer., Results: Queries were applied to 212 165 visits. On record review, the authors found diagnostic errors in 141 of 674 Trigger 1-positive records (positive predictive value (PPV)=20.9%, 95% CI 17.9% to 24.0%) and 36 of 669 Trigger 2-positive records (PPV=5.4%, 95% CI 3.7% to 7.1%). The control PPV of 2.1% (95% CI 0.1% to 3.3%) was significantly lower than that of both triggers (p≤0.002). Inter-reviewer reliability was modest, though higher than in comparable previous studies (к=0.37 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.44))., Conclusions: While physician agreement on diagnostic error remains low, an EHR-facilitated surveillance methodology could be useful for gaining insight into the origin of these errors.

Objective: Diagnostic errors in primary care are harmful but poorly studied. To facilitate the understanding of diagnostic errors in real-world primary care settings that use electronic health records (EHRs), this study explored the use of the situational awareness (SA) framework from aviation human factors research., Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted involving reviews of EHR data followed by semi-structured interviews of selected providers from two institutions in the USA. The study population included 380 consecutive patients with colorectal and lung cancers diagnosed between February 2008 and January 2009. Using a pre-tested data collection instrument, trained physicians identified diagnostic errors, defined as lack of timely action on one or more established indications for diagnostic work-up for lung and colorectal cancers. Twenty-six providers involved in cases with and without errors were interviewed. Interviews probed for providers' lack of SA and how this may have influenced the diagnostic process., Results: Of 254 cases meeting inclusion criteria, errors were found in 30 of 92 (32.6%) lung cancer cases and 56 of 167 (33.5%) colorectal cancer cases. Analysis of interviews related to error cases revealed evidence of lack of one of four levels of SA applicable to primary care practice: information perception, information comprehension, forecasting future events, and choosing appropriate action based on the first three levels. In cases without error, application of the SA framework provided insight into processes involved in attention management., Conclusions: A framework of SA can help analyse and understand diagnostic errors in primary care settings that use EHRs.