i-CLIMATE: a "clinical climate informatics" action framework to reduce environmental pollution from healthcare

Addressing environmental pollution and climate change is one of the biggest sociotechnical challenges of our time. While information technology has led to improvements in healthcare, it has also contributed to increased energy usage, destructive natural resource extraction, piles of e-waste, and increased greenhouse gases. We introduce a framework "Information technology-enabled Clinical cLimate InforMAtics acTions for the Environment" (i-CLIMATE) to illustrate how clinical informatics can help reduce healthcare's environmental pollution and climate-related impacts using 5 actionable components: (1) create a circular economy for health IT, (2) reduce energy consumption through smarter use of health IT, (3) support more environmentally friendly decision-making by clinicians and health administrators, (4) mobilize healthcare workforce environmental stewardship through informatics, and (5) Inform policies and regulations for change. We define Clinical Climate Informatics as a field that applies data, information, and knowledge management principles to operationalize components of the i-CLIMATE Framework.

Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation

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.

Influence of doctor-patient conversations on behaviours of patients presenting to primary care with new or persistent symptoms: a video observation study

BACKGROUND

Most cancers are diagnosed following contact with primary care. Patients diagnosed with cancer often see their doctor multiple times with potentially relevant symptoms before being referred to see a specialist, suggesting missed opportunities during doctor-patient conversations.

OBJECTIVE

To understand doctor-patient communication around the significance of persistent or new presenting problems and its potential impact on timely cancer diagnosis.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Qualitative thematic analysis based on video recordings of doctor-patient consultations in primary care and follow-up interviews with patients and doctors. 80 video observations, 20 patient interviews and 7 doctor interviews across 7 general practices in England.

RESULTS

We found that timeliness of diagnosis may be adversely affected if doctors and patients do not come to an agreement about the presenting problem's significance. 'Disagreements' may involve misaligned cognitive factors such as differences in medical knowledge between doctor and patient or misaligned emotional factors such as patients' unexpressed fear of diagnostic procedures. Interviews suggested that conversations where the difference in views is either not recognised or stays unresolved may lead to unhelpful patient behaviour after the consultation (eg, non-attendance at specialist appointments), creating potential for diagnostic delay and patient harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight how doctor-patient consultations can impact timely diagnosis when patients present with persistent or new problems. Misalignments were common and could go unnoticed, leaving gaps for potential to cause patient harm. These findings have implications for timely diagnosis of cancer and other serious disease because they highlight the complexity and fluidity of the consultation and the subsequent impact on the diagnostic process.