1
|
Bradford A, Meyer AND, Khan S, Giardina TD, Singh H. Diagnostic error in mental health: a review. BMJ Qual Saf 2024:bmjqs-2023-016996. [PMID: 38575311 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
Diagnostic errors are associated with patient harm and suboptimal outcomes. Despite national scientific efforts to advance definition, measurement and interventions for diagnostic error, diagnosis in mental health is not well represented in this ongoing work. We aimed to summarise the current state of research on diagnostic errors in mental health and identify opportunities to align future research with the emerging science of diagnostic safety. We review conceptual considerations for defining and measuring diagnostic error, the application of these concepts to mental health settings, and the methods and subject matter focus of recent studies of diagnostic error in mental health. We found that diagnostic error is well understood to be a problem in mental healthcare. Although few studies used clear definitions or frameworks for understanding diagnostic error in mental health, several studies of missed, wrong, delayed and disparate diagnosis of common mental disorders have identified various avenues for future research and development. Nevertheless, a lack of clear consensus on how to conceptualise, define and measure errors in diagnosis will pose a barrier to advancement. Further research should focus on identifying preventable missed opportunities in the diagnosis of mental disorders, which may uncover generalisable opportunities for improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Bradford
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ashley N D Meyer
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sundas Khan
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zwaan L, Smith KM, Giardina TD, Hooftman J, Singh H. Patient generated research priorities to improve diagnostic safety: A systematic prioritization exercise. Patient Educ Couns 2023; 110:107650. [PMID: 36731167 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Revised: 01/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/26/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most people experience a diagnostic error at least once in their lifetime. Patients' experiences with their diagnosis could provide important insights when setting research priorities to reduce diagnostic error. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to engage patients in research agenda setting for improving diagnosis. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT Patients were involved in generating, discussing, prioritizing, and ranking of research questions for diagnostic error reduction. METHODS We used the prioritization methodology based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). We first solicited research questions important for diagnostic error reduction from a large group of patients. Thirty questions were initially prioritized at an in-person meeting with 8 patients who were supported by 4 researchers. The resulting list was further prioritized by patients who scored questions on five predefined criteria. We then applied previously determined weights to these prioritization criteria to adjust the final prioritization score for each question, resulting in 10 highest priority research questions. RESULTS Forty-one patients submitted 171 research questions. After prioritization, the highest priority topics included better care coordination across the diagnostic continuum and improving care transitions, improved identification and measurement of diagnostic errors and attention for implicit bias towards patients who are vulnerable to diagnostic errors. DISCUSSION We systematically identified the top-10 patient generated research priorities for diagnostic error reduction using transparent and objective methods. Patients prioritized different research questions than researchers and therefore complemented an agenda previously generated by researchers. PRACTICAL VALUE Research priorities identified by patients can be used by funders and researchers to conduct future research focused on reducing diagnostic errors. FUNDING This project was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Zwaan
- Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Kelly M Smith
- Michael Garron Hospital - Toronto East Health Network, 825 Coxwell Ave, Toronto, ON M4C 3E7, Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada.
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Blvd. 152, Houston TX 77030, USA; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.
| | - Jacky Hooftman
- Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Blvd. 152, Houston TX 77030, USA; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Giardina TD, Hunte H, Hill MA, Heimlich SL, Singh H, Smith KM. Defining Diagnostic Error: A Scoping Review to Assess the Impact of the National Academies' Report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. J Patient Saf 2022; 18:770-778. [PMID: 35405723 PMCID: PMC9698189 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000999] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Standards for accurate and timely diagnosis are ill-defined. In 2015, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee published a landmark report, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care , and proposed a new definition of diagnostic error, "the failure to ( a ) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem(s) or ( b ) communicate that explanation to the patient." OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore how researchers operationalize the NASEM's definition of diagnostic error with relevance to accuracy, timeliness, and/or communication in peer-reviewed published literature. METHODS Using the Arskey and O'Malley's framework framework, we identified published literature from October 2015 to February 2021 using Medline and Google Scholar. We also conducted subject matter expert interviews with researchers. RESULTS Of 34 studies identified, 16 were analyzed and abstracted to determine how diagnostic error was operationalized and measured. Studies were grouped by theme: epidemiology, patient focus, measurement/surveillance, and clinician focus. Nine studies indicated using the NASEM definition. Of those, 5 studies also operationalized with existing definitions proposed before the NASEM report. Four studies operationalized the components of the NASEM definition and did not cite existing definitions. Three studies operationalized error using existing definitions only. Subject matter experts indicated that the NASEM definition functions as foundation for researchers to conceptualize diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS The NASEM report produced a common understanding of diagnostic error that includes accuracy, timeliness, and communication. In recent peer-reviewed literature, most researchers continue to use pre-NASEM report definitions to operationalize accuracy and timeliness. The report catalyzed the use of patient-centered concepts in the definition, resulting in emerging studies focused on examining errors related to communicating diagnosis to patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Traber D. Giardina
- From the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Haslyn Hunte
- MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety (MIQS), Columbia
- Medstar Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Mary A. Hill
- MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety (MIQS), Columbia
- Medstar Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | - Hardeep Singh
- From the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Kelly M. Smith
- MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety (MIQS), Columbia
- Medstar Health, Baltimore, Maryland
- Michael Garron Hospital–Toronto East Health Network
- Institute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Giardina TD, Shahid U, Mushtaq U, Upadhyay DK, Marinez A, Singh H. Creating a Learning Health System for Improving Diagnostic Safety: Pragmatic Insights from US Health Care Organizations. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37:3965-3972. [PMID: 35650467 PMCID: PMC9640494 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-022-07554-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 03/30/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify challenges and pragmatic strategies for improving diagnostic safety at an organizational level using concepts from learning health systems METHODS: We interviewed 32 safety leaders across the USA on how their organizations approach diagnostic safety. Participants were recruited through email and represented geographically diverse academic and non-academic settings. The interview included questions on culture of reporting and learning from diagnostic errors; data gathering and analysis activities; diagnostic training and educational activities; and engagement of clinical leadership, staff, patients, and families in diagnostic safety activities. We conducted an inductive content analysis of interview transcripts and two reviewers coded all data. RESULTS Of 32 participants, 12 reported having a specific program to address diagnostic errors. Multiple barriers to implement diagnostic safety activities emerged: serious concerns about psychological safety associated with diagnostic error; lack of infrastructure for measurement, monitoring, and improvement activities related to diagnosis; lack of leadership investment, which was often diverted to competing priorities related to publicly reported measures or other incentives; and lack of dedicated teams to work on diagnostic safety. Participants provided several strategies to overcome barriers including adapting trigger tools to identify safety events, engaging patients in diagnostic safety, and appointing dedicated diagnostic safety champions. CONCLUSIONS Several foundational building blocks related to learning health systems could inform organizational efforts to reduce diagnostic error. Promoting an organizational culture specific to diagnostic safety, using science and informatics to improve measurement and analysis, leadership incentives to build institutional capacity to address diagnostic errors, and patient engagement in diagnostic safety activities can enable progress.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), Houston, TX, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Umber Shahid
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Umair Mushtaq
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Divvy K Upadhyay
- Division of Quality, Safety and Patient Experience, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
| | - Abigail Marinez
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Savoy A, Patel H, Shahid U, Offner AD, Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AND. Electronic Co-design (ECO-design) Workshop for Increasing Clinician Participation in the Design of Health Services Interventions: Participatory Design Approach. JMIR Hum Factors 2022; 9:e37313. [PMID: 36136374 PMCID: PMC9539640 DOI: 10.2196/37313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Revised: 07/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Participation from clinician stakeholders can improve the design and implementation of health care interventions. Participatory design methods, especially co-design methods, comprise stakeholder-led design activities that are time-consuming. Competing work demands and increasing workloads make clinicians' commitments to typical participatory methods even harder. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated barriers to clinician participation in such interventions. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore a web-based participatory design approach to conduct economical, electronic co-design (ECO-design) workshops with primary care clinicians. METHODS We adapted traditional in-person co-design workshops to web-based delivery and adapted co-design workshop series to fit within a single 1-hour session. We applied the ECO-design workshop approach to codevelop feedback interventions regarding abnormal test result follow-up in primary care. We conducted ECO-design workshops with primary care clinicians at a medical center in Southern Texas, using videoconferencing software. Each workshop focused on one of three types of feedback interventions: conversation guide, email template, and dashboard prototype. We paired electronic materials and software features to facilitate participant interactions, prototyping, and data collection. The workshop protocol included four main activities: problem identification, solution generation, prototyping, and debriefing. Two facilitators were assigned to each workshop and one researcher resolved technical problems. After the workshops, our research team met to debrief and evaluate workshops. RESULTS A total of 28 primary care clinicians participated in our ECO-design workshops. We completed 4 parallel workshops, each with 5-10 participants. We conducted traditional analyses and generated a clinician persona (ie, representative description) and user interface prototypes. We also formulated recommendations for future ECO-design workshop recruitment, technology, facilitation, and data collection. Overall, our adapted workshops successfully enabled primary care clinicians to participate without increasing their workload, even during a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS ECO-design workshops are viable, economical alternatives to traditional approaches. This approach fills a need for efficient methods to involve busy clinicians in the design of health care interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- April Savoy
- Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, United States.,Center for Health Information and Communication (Center of Innovation 13-416), Health Services Research and Development Service, Richard L Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Himalaya Patel
- Center for Health Information and Communication (Center of Innovation 13-416), Health Services Research and Development Service, Richard L Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Umber Shahid
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, United States.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Alexis D Offner
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, United States.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, United States.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, United States.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ashley N D Meyer
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, United States.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Giardina TD, Choi DT, Upadhyay DK, Korukonda S, Scott TM, Spitzmueller C, Schuerch C, Torretti D, Singh H. Inviting patients to identify diagnostic concerns through structured evaluation of their online visit notes. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29:1091-1100. [PMID: 35348688 PMCID: PMC9093029 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2021] [Revised: 02/03/2022] [Accepted: 03/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review. OBJECTIVE To test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes. METHODS In a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables. RESULTS Of 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01). CONCLUSION Patients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Debra T Choi
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | | | - Taylor M Scott
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | | | | | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Zimolzak AJ, Shahid U, Giardina TD, Memon SA, Mushtaq U, Zubkoff L, Murphy DR, Bradford A, Singh H. Why Test Results Are Still Getting "Lost" to Follow-up: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Gaps. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37:137-144. [PMID: 33907982 PMCID: PMC8739406 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06772-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lack of timely follow-up of abnormal test results is common and has been implicated in missed or delayed diagnosis, resulting in potential for patient harm. OBJECTIVE As part of a larger project to implement change strategies to improve follow-up of diagnostic test results, this study sought to identify specifically where implementation gaps exist, as well as possible solutions identified by front-line staff. DESIGN We used a semi-structured interview guide to collect qualitative data from Veterans Affairs (VA) facility staff who had experience with test results management and patient safety. SETTING Twelve VA facilities across the USA. PARTICIPANTS Facility staff members (n = 27), including clinicians, lab and imaging professionals, nursing staff, patient safety professionals, and leadership. APPROACH We conducted a content analysis of interview transcripts to identify perceived barriers and high-risk areas for effective test result management, as well as recommendations for improvement. RESULTS We identified seven themes to guide further development of interventions to improve test result follow-up. Themes related to trainees, incidental findings, tracking systems for electronic health record notifications, outdated contact information, referrals, backup or covering providers, and responsibility for test results pending at discharge. Participants provided recommendations for improvement within each theme. CONCLUSIONS Perceived barriers and recommendations for improving test result follow-up often reflected previously known problems and their corresponding solutions, which have not been consistently implemented in practice. Better policy solutions and improvement methods, such as quality improvement collaboratives, may bridge the implementation gaps between knowledge and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Zimolzak
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Umber Shahid
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sahar A Memon
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Umair Mushtaq
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lisa Zubkoff
- Birmingham/Atlanta VA GRECC, and Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Daniel R Murphy
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrea Bradford
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard 152, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. .,Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rajan SS, Baldwin JL, Giardina TD, Singh H. Technology-Based Closed-Loop Tracking for Improving Communication and Follow-up of Pathology Results. J Patient Saf 2022; 18:e262-e266. [PMID: 32804871 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000759] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Failure to follow-up on laboratory test results can lead to missed diagnoses, diagnostic delays, patient harm, and potential malpractice claims against providers. State-of-the-art tracking technologies such as the radio frequency identification (RFID) can potentially improve laboratory order processing and test result communication. We conducted a comparative evaluation of differences in completion rates for 5 testing process milestones and time to reach these process milestones, with and without RFID order tracking for skin biopsy orders. METHODS This observational study analyzed 48,515 orders from 20 dermatology providers, sent to 8 pathology laboratories in 2016 to 2017. Descriptive t tests and multiple Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to examine the differences in completion rates and times to the 5 testing process milestones, namely, (1) provider receipt of results, (2) provider review of results, (3) patient notification, (4) follow-up scheduling, and (5) order case closure, for orders processed with and without RFID order tracking. RESULTS Descriptive statistics illustrated that all 5 testing process milestone completion rates were statistically higher for RFID tracked orders compared with non-RFID tracked orders, and RFID tracked orders took 3 to 5 days lesser than non-RFID tracked orders to reach the 5 testing process milestones. Multiple cox proportional hazard regressions showed that the process milestones were achieved faster if orders were RFID tracked versus not (hazard ratios ranged from 1.3 to 4.9). CONCLUSIONS The RFID tracking technology considerably improved test result communication timeliness and reliability. Such technologies can be beneficial for laboratory order processing, and their effectiveness should be explored in other practice settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suja S Rajan
- From the Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mahajan P, Mollen C, Alpern ER, Baird-Cox K, Boothman RC, Chamberlain JM, Cosby K, Epstein HM, Gegenheimer-Holmes J, Gerardi M, Giardina TD, Patel VL, Ruddy R, Saleem J, Shaw KN, Sittig DF, Singh H. An Operational Framework to Study Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments: Findings From A Consensus Panel. J Patient Saf 2021; 17:570-575. [PMID: 31790012 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To create an operational definition and framework to study diagnostic error in the emergency department setting. METHODS We convened a 17-member multidisciplinary panel with expertise in general and pediatric emergency medicine, nursing, patient safety, informatics, cognitive psychology, social sciences, human factors, and risk management and a patient/caregiver advocate. We used a modified nominal group technique to develop a shared understanding to operationally define diagnostic errors in emergency care and modify the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's conceptual process framework to this setting. RESULTS The expert panel defined diagnostic errors as "a divergence from evidence-based processes that increases the risk of poor outcomes despite the availability of sufficient information to provide a timely and accurate explanation of the patient's health problem(s)." Diagnostic processes include tasks related to (a) acuity recognition, information and synthesis, evaluation coordination, and (b) communication with patients/caregivers and other diagnostic team members. The expert panel also modified the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's diagnostic process framework to incorporate influence of mode of arrival, triage level, and interventions during emergency care and underscored the importance of outcome feedback to emergency department providers to promote learning and improvement related to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS The proposed operational definition and modified diagnostic process framework can potentially inform the development of measurement tools and strategies to study the epidemiology and interventions to improve emergency care diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Cynthia Mollen
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Elizabeth R Alpern
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Richard C Boothman
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - James M Chamberlain
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children's National Health System, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Karen Cosby
- Emergency Medicine, Cook County Hospital (Stroger) and Rush Medical School, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Helene M Epstein
- Member of the Board of Directors, Brightpoint Care, New York, New York
| | | | - Michael Gerardi
- Emergency Medicine, Morristown Medical Center and Goryeb Children's Hospital, Morristown, New Jersey
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Vimla L Patel
- Center for Cognitive Studies in Medicine and Public Health, The New York Academy of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Richard Ruddy
- University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Jason Saleem
- Industrial Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
| | - Kathy N Shaw
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Dean F Sittig
- School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Meyer AND, Giardina TD, Khawaja L, Singh H. Patient and clinician experiences of uncertainty in the diagnostic process: Current understanding and future directions. Patient Educ Couns 2021; 104:2606-2615. [PMID: 34312032 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Uncertainty occurs throughout the diagnostic process and must be managed to facilitate accurate and timely diagnoses and treatments. Better characterization of uncertainty can inform strategies to manage it more effectively in clinical practice. We provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on diagnosis-related uncertainty describing (1) where patients and clinicians experience uncertainty within the diagnostic process, (2) how uncertainty affects the diagnostic process, (3) roots of uncertainty related to probability/risk, ambiguity, or complexity, and (4) strategies to manage uncertainty. DISCUSSION Each diagnostic process step involves uncertainty, including patient engagement with the healthcare system; information gathering, interpretation, and integration; formulating working diagnoses; and communicating diagnoses to patients. General management strategies include acknowledging uncertainty, obtaining more contextual information from patients (e.g., gathering occupations and family histories), creating diagnostic safety nets (e.g., informing patients what red flags to look for), engaging in worst case/best case scenario planning, and communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients, families, and colleagues. Potential strategies tailored to various aspects of diagnostic uncertainty are also outlined. CONCLUSION Scientific knowledge on diagnostic uncertainty, while previously elusive, is now becoming more clearly defined. Next steps include research to evaluate relationships between management and communication of diagnostic uncertainty and improved patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley N D Meyer
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard (152), Houston, TX 77030, USA; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard (152), Houston, TX 77030, USA; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | - Lubna Khawaja
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard (152), Houston, TX 77030, USA; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Giardina TD, Korukonda S, Shahid U, Vaghani V, Upadhyay DK, Burke GF, Singh H. Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf 2021; 30:996-1001. [PMID: 33597282 PMCID: PMC8552507 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Revised: 02/02/2021] [Accepted: 02/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Background Patient complaints are associated with adverse events and malpractice claims but underused in patient safety improvement. Objective To systematically evaluate the use of patient complaint data to identify safety concerns related to diagnosis as an initial step to using this information to facilitate learning and improvement. Methods We reviewed patient complaints submitted to Geisinger, a large healthcare organisation in the USA, from August to December 2017 (cohort 1) and January to June 2018 (cohort 2). We selected complaints more likely to be associated with diagnostic concerns in Geisinger’s existing complaint taxonomy. Investigators reviewed all complaint summaries and identified cases as ‘concerning’ for diagnostic error using the National Academy of Medicine’s definition of diagnostic error. For all ‘concerning’ cases, a clinician-reviewer evaluated the associated investigation report and the patient’s medical record to identify any missed opportunities in making a correct or timely diagnosis. In cohort 2, we selected a 10% sample of ‘concerning’ cases to test this smaller pragmatic sample as a proof of concept for future organisational monitoring. Results In cohort 1, we reviewed 1865 complaint summaries and identified 177 (9.5%) concerning reports. Review and analysis identified 39 diagnostic errors. Most were categorised as ‘Clinical Care issues’ (27, 69.2%), defined as concerns/questions related to the care that is provided by clinicians in any setting. In cohort 2, we reviewed 2423 patient complaint summaries and identified 310 (12.8%) concerning reports. The 10% sample (n=31 cases) contained five diagnostic errors. Qualitative analysis of cohort 1 cases identified concerns about return visits for persistent and/or worsening symptoms, interpersonal issues and diagnostic testing. Conclusions Analysis of patient complaint data and corresponding medical record review identifies patterns of failures in the diagnostic process reported by patients and families. Health systems could systematically analyse available data on patient complaints to monitor diagnostic safety concerns and identify opportunities for learning and improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Saritha Korukonda
- Investigator Initiated Research Operations, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
| | - Umber Shahid
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Viralkumar Vaghani
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Divvy K Upadhyay
- Division of Quality, Safety and Patient Experience, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
| | - Greg F Burke
- Division of Quality, Safety and Patient Experience, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mahajan P, Pai CW, Cosby KS, Mollen CJ, Shaw KN, Chamberlain JM, El-Kareh R, Ruddy RM, Alpern ER, Epstein HM, Giardina TD, Graber ML, Medford-Davis LN, Medlin RP, Upadhyay DK, Parker SJ, Singh H. Identifying trigger concepts to screen emergency department visits for diagnostic errors. Diagnosis (Berl) 2020; 8:340-346. [PMID: 33180032 DOI: 10.1515/dx-2020-0122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2019] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The diagnostic process is a vital component of safe and effective emergency department (ED) care. There are no standardized methods for identifying or reliably monitoring diagnostic errors in the ED, impeding efforts to enhance diagnostic safety. We sought to identify trigger concepts to screen ED records for diagnostic errors and describe how they can be used as a measurement strategy to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm. METHODS We conducted a literature review and surveyed ED directors to compile a list of potential electronic health record (EHR) trigger (e-triggers) and non-EHR based concepts. We convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to build consensus on trigger concepts to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm in the ED. RESULTS Six e-trigger and five non-EHR based concepts were selected by the expert panel. E-trigger concepts included: unscheduled ED return to ED resulting in hospital admission, death following ED visit, care escalation, high-risk conditions based on symptom-disease dyads, return visits with new diagnostic/therapeutic interventions, and change of treating service after admission. Non-EHR based signals included: cases from mortality/morbidity conferences, risk management/safety office referrals, ED medical director case referrals, patient complaints, and radiology/laboratory misreads and callbacks. The panel suggested further refinements to aid future research in defining diagnostic error epidemiology in ED settings. CONCLUSIONS We identified a set of e-trigger concepts and non-EHR based signals that could be developed further to screen ED visits for diagnostic safety events. With additional evaluation, trigger-based methods can be used as tools to monitor and improve ED diagnostic performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prashant Mahajan
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Chih-Wen Pai
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Karen S Cosby
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Cook County Hospital (Stroger), Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Cynthia J Mollen
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kathy N Shaw
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - James M Chamberlain
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Robert El-Kareh
- UCSD Health Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Richard M Ruddy
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Elizabeth R Alpern
- Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Helene M Epstein
- Board of Directors, Brightpoint Care, New York, NY, USA (Subsidiary, Sun River Health, Peekskill, NY, USA)
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark L Graber
- Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, RTI International, Plymouth, MA, USA
| | | | - Richard P Medlin
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Divvy K Upadhyay
- Division of Quality, Safety and Patient Experience, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
| | - Sarah J Parker
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Giardina TD, Royse KE, Khanna A, Haskell H, Hallisy J, Southwick F, Singh H. Health Care Provider Factors Associated with Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Harm. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2020; 46:282-290. [PMID: 32362355 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2019] [Revised: 01/31/2020] [Accepted: 02/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients can provide valuable information missing from traditional sources of safety data, thus adding new insights about factors that lead to preventable harm. In this study, researchers determined associations between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms experienced after an adverse event (AE). METHODS A secondary analysis was conducted of a national sample of patient-reported AEs (surgical, medication, diagnostic, and hospital-acquired infection) gathered through an online questionnaire between January 2010 and February 2016. Generalized logit multivariable regression was used to assess the association between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms (grouped as nonphysical harm only, physical harm only, physical harm and emotional or financial harm, and all three harms) and adjusted for patient and AE characteristics. RESULTS One third of patients (32.6%) reported experiencing all three harms, 27.3% reported physical harms and one additional harm, 25.5% reported physical harms only, and 14.7% reported nonphysical harms only. Patients reporting all three harms were 2.5 times more likely to have filed a report with a responsible authority (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-5.01) and 3.3 times more likely to have also experienced a surgical complication (95% CI = 1.42-7.51). Odds of reporting problems related to communication between clinician and patients/families or clinician-related behavioral issues was 13% higher in those experiencing all three harm types (95% CI = 1.07-1.19). CONCLUSION Patients' experiences are important to identify safety issues and reduce harm and should be included in patient safety measurement and improvement activities. These findings underscore the need for policy and practice changes to identify, address, and support harmed patients.
Collapse
|
14
|
Meyer AND, Giardina TD, Spitzmueller C, Shahid U, Scott TMT, Singh H. Patient Perspectives on the Usefulness of an Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Symptom Checker: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22:e14679. [PMID: 32012052 PMCID: PMC7055765 DOI: 10.2196/14679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2019] [Revised: 10/17/2019] [Accepted: 10/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patients are increasingly seeking Web-based symptom checkers to obtain diagnoses. However, little is known about the characteristics of the patients who use these resources, their rationale for use, and whether they find them accurate and useful. Objective The study aimed to examine patients’ experiences using an artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted online symptom checker. Methods An online survey was administered between March 2, 2018, through March 15, 2018, to US users of the Isabel Symptom Checker within 6 months of their use. User characteristics, experiences of symptom checker use, experiences discussing results with physicians, and prior personal history of experiencing a diagnostic error were collected. Results A total of 329 usable responses was obtained. The mean respondent age was 48.0 (SD 16.7) years; most were women (230/304, 75.7%) and white (271/304, 89.1%). Patients most commonly used the symptom checker to better understand the causes of their symptoms (232/304, 76.3%), followed by for deciding whether to seek care (101/304, 33.2%) or where (eg, primary or urgent care: 63/304, 20.7%), obtaining medical advice without going to a doctor (48/304, 15.8%), and understanding their diagnoses better (39/304, 12.8%). Most patients reported receiving useful information for their health problems (274/304, 90.1%), with half reporting positive health effects (154/302, 51.0%). Most patients perceived it to be useful as a diagnostic tool (253/301, 84.1%), as a tool providing insights leading them closer to correct diagnoses (231/303, 76.2%), and reported they would use it again (278/304, 91.4%). Patients who discussed findings with their physicians (103/213, 48.4%) more often felt physicians were interested (42/103, 40.8%) than not interested in learning about the tool’s results (24/103, 23.3%) and more often felt physicians were open (62/103, 60.2%) than not open (21/103, 20.4%) to discussing the results. Compared with patients who had not previously experienced diagnostic errors (missed or delayed diagnoses: 123/304, 40.5%), patients who had previously experienced diagnostic errors (181/304, 59.5%) were more likely to use the symptom checker to determine where they should seek care (15/123, 12.2% vs 48/181, 26.5%; P=.002), but they less often felt that physicians were interested in discussing the tool’s results (20/34, 59% vs 22/69, 32%; P=.04). Conclusions Despite ongoing concerns about symptom checker accuracy, a large patient-user group perceived an AI-assisted symptom checker as useful for diagnosis. Formal validation studies evaluating symptom checker accuracy and effectiveness in real-world practice could provide additional useful information about their benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley N D Meyer
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | | | - Umber Shahid
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Taylor M T Scott
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Oxhandler HK, Moffatt KM, Giardina TD. Clinical helping professionals’ perceived support, barriers, and training to integrate clients’ religion/spirituality in practice. Spirituality in Clinical Practice 2019. [DOI: 10.1037/scp0000189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
16
|
Meyer AND, Giardina TD, Khanna A, Bhise V, Singhal GR, Street RL, Singh H. Pediatric clinician perspectives on communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Int J Qual Health Care 2019; 31:G107-G112. [PMID: 31322679 DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2019] [Revised: 04/17/2019] [Accepted: 06/18/2019] [Indexed: 01/25/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Diagnosis often evolves over time, involves uncertainty, and is vulnerable to errors. We examined pediatric clinicians' perspectives on communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients' parents and how this occurs. DESIGN We conducted semi-structured interviews, which were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis. Two researchers independently coded transcripts and then discussed discrepancies to reach consensus. SETTING A purposive sample of pediatric clinicians at two large academic medical institutions in Texas. PARTICIPANTS Twenty pediatric clinicians participated: 18 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners; 7 males, 13 females; 7 inpatient, 11 outpatient, and 2 practicing in mixed settings; with 0-16 years' experience post-residency. INTERVENTION(S) None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Pediatric clinician perspectives on communication of diagnostic uncertainty. RESULTS Pediatric clinicians commonly experienced diagnostic uncertainty and most were comfortable seeking help and discussing with colleagues. However, when communicating uncertainty to parents, clinicians used multiple considerations to adjust the degree to which they communicated. Considerations included parent characteristics (education, socioeconomic status, emotional response, and culture) and strength of parent-clinician relationships. Communication content included setting expectations, explaining the diagnostic process, discussing most relevant differentials, and providing reassurance. Responses to certain parent characteristics, however, were variable. For example, some clinicians were more open to discussing diagnostic uncertainty with more educated parents- others were less. CONCLUSIONS While pediatric clinicians are comfortable discussing diagnostic uncertainty with colleagues, how they communicate uncertainty to parents appears variable. Parent characteristics and parent-clinician relationships affect extent of communication and content discussed. Development and implementation of optimal strategies for managing and communicating diagnostic uncertainty can improve the diagnostic process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley N D Meyer
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Arushi Khanna
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Viraj Bhise
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
- John A Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 651 Ilalo Street Honolulu, HI, USA
| | - Geeta R Singhal
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
- Texas Children's Hospital, 1102 Bates St., Suite 1860, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 320, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Richard L Street
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
- Texas A&M University, 4234 TAMU, College Station, TX, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, TX, USA
- Baylor College of Medicine, Medicine-Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine-BCM 288, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Murphy DR, Giardina TD, Satterly T, Sittig DF, Singh H. An Exploration of Barriers, Facilitators, and Suggestions for Improving Electronic Health Record Inbox-Related Usability: A Qualitative Analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e1912638. [PMID: 31584683 PMCID: PMC6784746 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Managing messages in the electronic health record (EHR) inbox consumes substantial amounts of physician time. Certain factors associated with inbox management, such as poor usability and excessive and unnecessary inbox messages, have been associated with physician burnout. Additionally, inbox design, usability, and workflows are associated with physicians' situational awareness (ie, perception, comprehension, and projection of clinical status) and efficiency of processing EHR inbox messages. Understanding factors associated with inbox usability could improve future EHR inbox designs and workflows, thus reducing risk of burnout while improving patient safety. OBJECTIVE To determine barriers, facilitators, and suggestions associated with EHR inbox-related usability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This qualitative study included cognitive walkthroughs of EHR inbox management with 25 physicians (17 primary care physicians and 8 specialists) at 6 large health care organizations using 4 different EHR systems between May 6, 2015, and September 19, 2016. While processing EHR inbox messages, participants identified facilitators and barriers associated with EHR inbox situational awareness and processing efficiency and potential interventions to address such barriers. A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed recordings using an inductive thematic approach with an 8-dimension sociotechnical model as a theoretical lens from May 6, 2015, to August 15, 2019. RESULTS The cognitive walkthroughs identified 60 barriers, 32 facilitators, and 28 suggestions for improving the EHR inbox. Emergent data fit within 5 major themes: message processing complexity, inbox interface design, cognitive load, team communication, and inbox message content. Within these themes, similar barriers were identified across sites, such as poor usability due the high numbers of clicks needed to accomplish actions. In certain instances, an identified facilitator at one site provided the exact solution needed to address a barrier identified at another site. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This qualitative study found that usability of the EHR inbox is often suboptimal and variable across sites, suggesting lack of shared best practices related to information management. Implementation of optimized design features and workflows will require EHR developers and health care organizations to collectively share this responsibility. Development of regional or national consortia to support collaborative sharing and implementation of EHR system best practices across EHR developers and health care organizations could also improve safety and efficiency and reduce physician burnout.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel R. Murphy
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Traber D. Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Tyler Satterly
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Dean F. Sittig
- School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston
- Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Murphy DR, Satterly T, Giardina TD, Sittig DF, Singh H. Practicing Clinicians' Recommendations to Reduce Burden from the Electronic Health Record Inbox: a Mixed-Methods Study. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34:1825-1832. [PMID: 31292905 PMCID: PMC6712240 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05112-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Revised: 03/25/2019] [Accepted: 04/20/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Workload from electronic health record (EHR) inbox notifications leads to information overload and contributes to job dissatisfaction and physician burnout. Better understanding of physicians' inbox requirements and workflows could optimize inbox designs, enhance efficiency, and reduce safety risks from information overload. DESIGN We conducted a mixed-methods study to identify strategies to enhance EHR inbox design and workflow. First, we performed a secondary analysis of national survey data of all Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care practitioners (PCP) to identify major themes in responses to a free-text question soliciting suggestions to improve EHR inbox design and workflows. We then conducted expert interviews of clinicians at five health care systems (1 VA and 4 non-VA settings using 4 different EHRs) to understand existing optimal strategies to improve efficiency and situational awareness related to EHR inbox use. Themes from survey data were cross-validated with interview findings. RESULTS We analyzed responses from 2104 PCPs who completed the free-text inbox question (of 5001 PCPs who responded to survey) and used an inductive approach to identify five themes: (1) Inbox notification content should be actionable for patient care and relevant to recipient clinician, (2) Inboxes should reduce risk of losing messages, (3) Inbox functionality should be optimized to improve efficiency of processing notifications, (4) Team support should be leveraged to help with EHR inbox notification burden, (5) Sufficient time should be provided to all clinicians to process EHR inbox notifications. We subsequently interviewed 15 VA and non-VA clinicians and identified 11 unique strategies, each corresponding directly with one of these five themes. CONCLUSION Feedback from practicing end-user clinicians provides robust evidence to improve content and design of the EHR inbox and related clinical workflows and organizational policies. Several strategies we identified could improve clinicians' EHR efficiency and satisfaction as well as empower them to work with their local administrators, health IT personnel, and EHR developers to improve these systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel R Murphy
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Tyler Satterly
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Dean F Sittig
- University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston's School of Biomedical Informatics and the UT-Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality & Safety, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt) (152), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC), 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Nystrom DT, Singh H, Baldwin J, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Methods for Patient-Centered Interface Design of Test Result Display in Online Portals. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2018. [PMID: 30094287 DOI: http:/doi.org/10.5334/egems.255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients have unique information needs to help them interpret and make decisions about laboratory test results they receive on web-based portals. However, current portals are not designed in a patient-centered way and little is known on how best to harness patients' information needs to inform user-centered interface design of portals. We designed a patient-facing laboratory test result interface prototype based on requirement elicitation research and used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate this interface. METHODS After designing an initial test result display prototype, we used multiple evaluation methods, including focus group review sessions, expert consultation, and user testing, to make iterative design changes. For the user testing component, we recruited 14 patient-users to collect and analyze three types of data: comments made during testing sessions, responses to post-session questionnaires, and system usability scores. RESULTS Our initial patient-centered interface design included visual ranges of laboratory values, nontechnical descriptions of the test and result, and access to features to help patients interpret and make decisions about their results. Findings from our evaluation resulted in 6 design iterations of the interface. Results from user testing indicate that the later versions of the interface fulfilled patient's information needs, were perceived as usable, and provided access to information and techniques that facilitated patient's ability to derive meaning from each test result. CONCLUSIONS Requirement elicitation studies can inform the design of a patient-facing test result interface, but considerable user-centered design efforts are necessary to create an interface that patients find useful. To promote patient engagement, health information technology designers and developers can use similar approaches to enhance user-centered software design in patient portals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, US
| | - Jessica Baldwin
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, US
| | - Dean F Sittig
- School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, US
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, US
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Nystrom DT, Singh H, Baldwin J, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Methods for Patient-Centered Interface Design of Test Result Display in Online Portals. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2018. [PMID: 30094287 DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/egems.255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients have unique information needs to help them interpret and make decisions about laboratory test results they receive on web-based portals. However, current portals are not designed in a patient-centered way and little is known on how best to harness patients' information needs to inform user-centered interface design of portals. We designed a patient-facing laboratory test result interface prototype based on requirement elicitation research and used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate this interface. METHODS After designing an initial test result display prototype, we used multiple evaluation methods, including focus group review sessions, expert consultation, and user testing, to make iterative design changes. For the user testing component, we recruited 14 patient-users to collect and analyze three types of data: comments made during testing sessions, responses to post-session questionnaires, and system usability scores. RESULTS Our initial patient-centered interface design included visual ranges of laboratory values, nontechnical descriptions of the test and result, and access to features to help patients interpret and make decisions about their results. Findings from our evaluation resulted in 6 design iterations of the interface. Results from user testing indicate that the later versions of the interface fulfilled patient's information needs, were perceived as usable, and provided access to information and techniques that facilitated patient's ability to derive meaning from each test result. CONCLUSIONS Requirement elicitation studies can inform the design of a patient-facing test result interface, but considerable user-centered design efforts are necessary to create an interface that patients find useful. To promote patient engagement, health information technology designers and developers can use similar approaches to enhance user-centered software design in patient portals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, US
| | - Jessica Baldwin
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, US
| | - Dean F Sittig
- School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, US
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, US
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Smith MW, Hughes AM, Brown C, Russo E, Giardina TD, Mehta P, Singh H. Test results management and distributed cognition in electronic health record-enabled primary care. Health Informatics J 2018; 25:1549-1562. [PMID: 29905084 DOI: 10.1177/1460458218779114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Managing abnormal test results in primary care involves coordination across various settings. This study identifies how primary care teams manage test results in a large, computerized healthcare system in order to inform health information technology requirements for test results management and other distributed healthcare services. At five US Veterans Health Administration facilities, we interviewed 37 primary care team members, including 16 primary care providers, 12 registered nurses, and 9 licensed practical nurses. We performed content analysis using a distributed cognition approach, identifying patterns of information transmission across people and artifacts (e.g. electronic health records). Results illustrate challenges (e.g. information overload) as well as strategies used to overcome challenges. Various communication paths were used. Some team members served as intermediaries, processing information before relaying it. Artifacts were used as memory aids. Health information technology should address the risks of distributed work by supporting awareness of team and task status for reliable management of results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Baylor College of Medicine, USA
| | - Praveen Mehta
- VA Great Lakes Health Care System, USA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Baylor College of Medicine, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Giardina TD, Baldwin J, Nystrom DT, Sittig DF, Singh H. Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25:440-446. [PMID: 29240899 PMCID: PMC5885801 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2017] [Accepted: 11/14/2017] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective Online portals provide patients with access to their test results, but it is unknown how patients use these tools to manage results and what information is available to promote understanding. We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore patients' experiences and preferences when accessing their test results via portals. Materials and Methods We conducted 95 interviews (13 semistructured and 82 structured) with adults who viewed a test result in their portal between April 2015 and September 2016 at 4 large outpatient clinics in Houston, Texas. Semistructured interviews were coded using content analysis and transformed into quantitative data and integrated with the structured interview data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the structured data. Results Nearly two-thirds (63%) did not receive any explanatory information or test result interpretation at the time they received the result, and 46% conducted online searches for further information about their result. Patients who received an abnormal result were more likely to experience negative emotions (56% vs 21%; P = .003) and more likely to call their physician (44% vs 15%; P = .002) compared with those who received normal results. Discussion Study findings suggest that online portals are not currently designed to present test results to patients in a meaningful way. Patients experienced negative emotions often with abnormal results, but sometimes even with normal results. Simply providing access via portals is insufficient; additional strategies are needed to help patients interpret and manage their online test results. Conclusion Given the absence of national guidance, our findings could help strengthen policy and practice in this area and inform innovations that promote patient understanding of test results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Traber D Giardina
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jessica Baldwin
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel T Nystrom
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Dean F Sittig
- Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Bhise V, Meyer AND, Menon S, Singhal G, Street RL, Giardina TD, Singh H. Patient perspectives on how physicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study. Int J Qual Health Care 2018; 30:2-8. [PMID: 29329438 DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx170] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2017] [Accepted: 12/29/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We evaluated the effects of three different strategies for communicating diagnostic uncertainty on patient perceptions of physician competence and visit satisfaction. DESIGN/SETTING Experimental vignette-based study design involving pediatric cases presented to a convenience sample of parents living in a large US city. PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTION(S) Three vignettes were developed, each describing one of three different ways physicians communicated diagnostic uncertainty to parents-(i) explicit expression of uncertainty ('not sure' about diagnosis), (ii) implicit expression of uncertainty using broad differential diagnoses and (iii) implicit expression of uncertainty using 'most likely' diagnoses. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three vignettes and then answered a 37-item web-based questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Outcome variables included parent-perceived technical competence of physician, trust and confidence, visit satisfaction and adherence to physician instructions. Differences between the three groups were compared using analysis of variance, followed by individual post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS Seventy-one participants completed the vignette questions. Demographic characteristics and scores on activation (parent activation measure [PAM]) and intolerance to uncertainty were similar across the three groups. Explicit expression of uncertainty was associated with lower perceived technical competence, less trust and confidence, and lower patient adherence as compared to the two groups with implicit communication. These latter two groups had comparable outcomes. CONCLUSION Parents may react less negatively in terms of perceived competence, physician confidence and trust, and intention to adhere when diagnostic uncertainty is communicated using implicit strategies, such as using broad differential diagnoses or most likely diagnoses. Evidence-based strategies to communicate diagnostic uncertainty to patients need further development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Viraj Bhise
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Ashley N D Meyer
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Shailaja Menon
- Houston Community College, 1300 Holman Street, Houston, TX 77004, USA
| | - Geeta Singhal
- Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, 6621 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Richard L Street
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 4234 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Medicine, Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Oxhandler HK, Giardina TD. Social Workers' Perceived Barriers to and Sources of Support for Integrating Clients' Religion and Spirituality in Practice. Soc Work 2017; 62:323-332. [PMID: 28957580 DOI: 10.1093/sw/swx036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2016] [Accepted: 10/24/2016] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
This article describes the qualitative responses from a national sample of licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) on their views regarding integrating clients' religion and spirituality (RS) in practice. Two open-ended questions were asked to assess what helps or assists LCSWs in assessing and integrating clients' RS in practice and what hinders or prevents LCSWs from considering this area of clients' lives. A total of 329 responded to either item, with 319 responses to the first item and 279 responses to the second. The authors used open-coding procedures, developed a codebook to analyze the data, and reached consensus on each response. Overarching themes that emerged from LCSWs' responses to what helps them consider this area included personal religiosity, education, and having an RS-sensitive practice. Regarding what hinders RS integration, LCSWs reported that nothing hinders such integration; that it was not relevant; or listed various barriers, including a lack of training, client discouraging the discussion, or experiencing fear or perceiving RS as a taboo topic. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for social work education and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly K Oxhandler
- Diana R. Garland School of Social Work, Baylor University, One Bear Place, #97320, Waco, TX 76798
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and the Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Menon S, Singh H, Giardina TD, Rayburn WL, Davis BP, Russo EM, Sittig DF. Safety huddles to proactively identify and address electronic health record safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24:261-267. [PMID: 28031286 PMCID: PMC5391729 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Methods to identify and study safety risks of electronic health records (EHRs) are underdeveloped and largely depend on limited end-user reports. "Safety huddles" have been found useful in creating a sense of collective situational awareness that increases an organization's capacity to respond to safety concerns. We explored the use of safety huddles for identifying and learning about EHR-related safety concerns. DESIGN Data were obtained from daily safety huddle briefing notes recorded at a single midsized tertiary-care hospital in the United States over 1 year. Huddles were attended by key administrative, clinical, and information technology staff. We conducted a content analysis of huddle notes to identify what EHR-related safety concerns were discussed. We expanded a previously developed EHR-related error taxonomy to categorize types of EHR-related safety concerns recorded in the notes. RESULTS On review of daily huddle notes spanning 249 days, we identified 245 EHR-related safety concerns. For our analysis, we defined EHR technology to include a specific EHR functionality, an entire clinical software application, or the hardware system. Most concerns (41.6%) involved " EHR technology working incorrectly, " followed by 25.7% involving " EHR technology not working at all. " Concerns related to "EHR technology missing or absent" accounted for 16.7%, whereas 15.9% were linked to " user errors ." CONCLUSIONS Safety huddles promoted discussion of several technology-related issues at the organization level and can serve as a promising technique to identify and address EHR-related safety concerns. Based on our findings, we recommend that health care organizations consider huddles as a strategy to promote understanding and improvement of EHR safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shailaja Menon
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Traber D Giardina
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Brenda P Davis
- Baylor Scott and White, College Station, TX, USA
- Premier Management, Inc., College Station, TX, USA
| | - Elise M Russo
- Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Dean F Sittig
- University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Biomedical Informatics and UT-Memorial Hermann Center for Health Care Quality and Safety, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|