Article

Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.

Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 11/2006; 145(7):488-96.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although missed and delayed diagnoses have become an important patient safety concern, they remain largely unstudied, especially in the outpatient setting.
To develop a framework for investigating missed and delayed diagnoses, advance understanding of their causes, and identify opportunities for prevention.
Retrospective review of 307 closed malpractice claims in which patients alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ambulatory setting.
4 malpractice insurance companies.
Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for patients, process breakdowns, and contributing factors.
A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients. Fifty-nine percent (106 of 181) of these errors were associated with serious harm, and 30% (55 of 181) resulted in death. For 59% (106 of 181) of the errors, cancer was the diagnosis involved, chiefly breast (44 claims [24%]) and colorectal (13 claims [7%]) cancer. The most common breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (100 of 181 [55%]), failure to create a proper follow-up plan (81 of 181 [45%]), failure to obtain an adequate history or perform an adequate physical examination (76 of 181 [42%]), and incorrect interpretation of diagnostic tests (67 of 181 [37%]). The leading factors that contributed to the errors were failures in judgment (143 of 181 [79%]), vigilance or memory (106 of 181 [59%]), knowledge (86 of 181 [48%]), patient-related factors (84 of 181 [46%]), and handoffs (36 of 181 [20%]). The median number of process breakdowns and contributing factors per error was 3 for both (interquartile range, 2 to 4).
Reviewers were not blinded to the litigation outcomes, and the reliability of the error determination was moderate.
Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the result of multiple breakdowns and individual and system factors. Awareness of the most common types of breakdowns and factors could help efforts to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.

0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality in healthcare is ideally at an optimal benchmark, but must be at least above the minimal standards for care. While laboratory quality is ideally judged in clinical terms, laboratory medicine has also used biological variations and state-of-the-art criteria when, as is often the case, clinical outcome studies or clinical consensus are not available. The post-analytical phase involves taking quality technical results and providing the means for clinical interpretation in the report. Reference intervals are commonly used as a basis for data interpretation; however, laboratories vary in the reference intervals they use, even when analysis is similar. Reference intervals may have greater clinical value if they are both optimised to account for physiological individuality, as well as if they are harmonised through professional consensus. Clinical decision limits are generally superior to reference intervals as a basis for interpretation because they address the specific clinical concern in any patient. As well as providing quality data and interpretation, the knowledge of laboratory experts can be used to provide targeted procedural knowledge in a patient report. Most profoundly critically abnormal results should to be acted upon to minimise the risk of mortality. The three steps in quality report interpretation, (i) describing the abnormal data, (ii) interpreting the clinical information within that data and (iii) providing knowledge for clinical follow-up, highlight that the quality of all laboratory testing is reflected in its impact on clinical management and improving patient outcomes.
    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 04/2015; DOI:10.1515/cclm-2015-0016 · 2.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The role of electronic health records (EHR) in enhancing patient safety, while substantiated in many studies, is still debated. This paper examines early EHR adopters in primary care to understand the extent to which EHR implementation is associated with the workflows, policies and practices that promote patient safety, as compared to practices with paper records. Early adoption is defined as those who were using EHR prior to implementation of the Meaningful Use program. We utilized the Physician Practice Patient Safety Assessment (PPPSA) to compare primary care practices with fully implemented EHR to those utilizing paper records. The PPPSA measures the extent of adoption of patient safety practices in the domains: medication management, handoffs and transition, personnel qualifications and competencies, practice management and culture, and patient communication. Data from 209 primary care practices responding between 2006-2010 were included in the analysis: 117 practices used paper medical records and 92 used an EHR. Results showed that, within all domains, EHR settings showed significantly higher rates of having workflows, policies and practices that promote patient safety than paper record settings. While these results were expected in the area of medication management, EHR use was also associated with adoption of patient safety practices in areas in which the researchers had no a priori expectations of association. Sociotechnical models of EHR use point to complex interactions between technology and other aspects of the environment related to human resources, workflow, policy, culture, among others. This study identifies that among primary care practices in the national PPPSA database, having an EHR was strongly empirically associated with the workflow, policy, communication and cultural practices recommended for safe patient care in ambulatory settings.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2015; 6(1):136-47. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2014-11-RA-0099 · 0.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to clarify the influence of predicting a correct diagnosis from the history on physical examination by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of auscultation with and without clinical information. The participants were 102 medical students from the 2013 clinical clerkship course. Auscultation was performed with a cardiology patient simulator. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group listened to a different simulated heart murmur and then made a diagnosis without clinical information. Next, a history suggesting a different murmur was provided to each group and they predicted the diagnosis. Finally, the students listened to a murmur corresponding to the history provided and again made a diagnosis. Correct and incorrect diagnosis rates of auscultation were compared between students with and without clinical information, between students predicting a correct or incorrect diagnosis from the history (correct and incorrect prediction groups, respectively), and between students without clinical information and those making an incorrect prediction. For auscultation with or without clinical information, the correct diagnosis rate was 62.7% (128/204 participants) versus 54.4% (111/204 participants), showing no significant difference (P=0.09). After receiving clinical information, a correct diagnosis was made by 102/117 students (87.2%) in the correct prediction group versus 26/87 students (29.9%) in the incorrect prediction group, showing a significant difference (P=0.006). The correct diagnosis rate was also significantly lower in the incorrect prediction group than when the students performed auscultation without clinical information (54.4% versus 29.9%, P<0.001). Obtaining a history alone does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of physical examination. However, accurately predicting the diagnosis from the history is associated with higher diagnostic accuracy of physical examination, while incorrect prediction is associated with lower diagnostic accuracy of examination.
    02/2015; 6:143-8. DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S77315

Preview

Download
2 Downloads
Available from