Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey

Personal and organisational health literacy in the non-specific symptom pathway for cancer: An ethnographic study

INTRODUCTION

People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non-specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways.

METHODS

This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy.

RESULTS

Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge.

CONCLUSION

We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help-seeking post-discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.-A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript.

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

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.

Preferred language and diagnostic errors in the pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between language and diagnostic errors (DxE) in the pediatric emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Electronic trigger identified ED encounters resulting in unplanned hospital admission that occurred within 10 days of an index visit from January 2018 through February 2022. Manual screening of each triggered encounter identified cases where the index visit diagnosis and hospitalization discharge diagnosis differed, and these were screened in for review using the Revised Safer Dx instrument to determine if a diagnostic error (DxE) occurred. Non-English primary language (NEPL) and English-proficient (EP) groups were established based on caregiver language. The primary outcome was the proportion of DxE each group. Data were analyzed using univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression to identify independent predictors of DxE.

RESULTS

Electronic trigger identified 3,551 patients, of which 806 (22.7 %) screened in for Safer Dx review. 172 (21.3 %) experienced DxE. The proportion of DxE was similar between EP and NEPL groups (21.5 vs. 21.7 %; p=0.97). Age≥12 years and fewer prior admissions in the preceding 6 months predicted higher odds of DxE. NEPL did not predict higher odds of DxE.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPL was not associated with increased odds DxE resulting in unplanned admission.

Evaluating Prognostic Bias of Critical Illness Severity Scores Based on Age, Sex, and Primary Language in the United States: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Although illness severity scoring systems are widely used to support clinical decision-making and assess ICU performance, their potential bias across different age, sex, and primary language groups has not been well-studied.

DESIGN SETTING AND PATIENTS

We aimed to identify potential bias of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IVa scores via large ICU databases.

SETTING/PATIENTS

This multicenter, retrospective study was conducted using data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) and eICU Collaborative Research Database. SOFA and APACHE IVa scores were obtained from ICU admission. Hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] curve) and calibration (standardized mortality ratio [SMR]) were assessed for all subgroups.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 196,310 patient encounters were studied. Discrimination for both scores was worse in older patients compared with younger patients and female patients rather than male patients. In MIMIC, discrimination of SOFA in non-English primary language speakers patients was worse than that of English speakers (AUROC 0.726 vs. 0.783, p < 0.0001). Evaluating calibration via SMR showed statistically significant underestimations of mortality when compared with overall cohort in the oldest patients for both SOFA and APACHE IVa, female patients (1.09) for SOFA, and non-English primary language patients (1.38) for SOFA in MIMIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in discrimination and calibration of two scores across varying age, sex, and primary language groups suggest illness severity scores are prone to bias in mortality predictions. Caution must be taken when using them for quality benchmarking and decision-making among diverse real-world populations.

Partnering with Patients and Families to Improve Diagnostic Safety through the OurDX Tool: Effects of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Preference

BACKGROUND

Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note.

RESULTS

Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or "other" race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference.

CONCLUSION

Participants self-identifying as Black or "other" race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities.

Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns.

METHOD

We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions.

RESULTS

7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions to coproduce diagnostic safety through OurDX: a previsit online engagement tool

OBJECTIVE

Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ("OurDX") that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note.

METHODS

Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings.

RESULTS

Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories.

CONCLUSIONS

OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note.