Patient Identification of Diagnostic Safety Blindspots and Participation in "Good Catches" Through Shared Visit Notes

Bringing team science to the ambulatory diagnostic process: how do patients and clinicians develop shared mental models?

The ambulatory diagnostic process is potentially complex, resulting in faulty communication, lost information, and a lack of team coordination. Patients and families have a unique position in the ambulatory diagnostic team, holding privileged information about their clinical conditions and serving as the connecting thread across multiple healthcare encounters. While experts advocate for engaging patients as diagnostic team members, operationalizing patient engagement has been challenging. The team science literature links improved team performance with shared mental models, a concept reflecting the team's commonly held knowledge about the tasks to be done and the expertise of each team member. Despite their proven potential to improve team performance and outcomes in other settings, shared mental models remain underexplored in healthcare. In this manuscript, we review the literature on shared mental models, applying that knowledge to the ambulatory diagnostic process. We consider the role of patients in the diagnostic team and adapt the five-factor model of shared mental models to develop a framework for patient-clinician diagnostic shared mental models. We conclude with research priorities. Development, maintenance, and use of shared mental models of the diagnostic process amongst patients, families, and clinicians may increase patient/family engagement, improve diagnostic team performance, and promote diagnostic safety.

Embedding Authorship Identity into a Portal-Based Agenda Setting Intervention to Support Older Adults and Care Partners

BACKGROUND

Patients, families, and clinicians increasingly communicate through patient portals. Due to potential for multiple authors, clinicians need to know who is communicating with them. OurNotes is a portal-based pre-visit agenda setting questionnaire. This study adapted OurNotes to include a self-identification question to help clinicians interpret information authored by nonpatients.

OBJECTIVES

To describe adapted OurNotes use and clinician feedback to inform broader implementation.

DESIGN

Evaluation of adapted OurNotes in a geriatric practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults with a portal account and a clinic visit; eight clinicians were interviewed.

INTERVENTION

OurNotes adaptation to clarify whether the author is the patient, the patient with help, or a nonpatient.

APPROACH

Cross-sectional chart review of OurNotes completion, patient characteristics, and visit topics by author type. Clinician interviews explored experiences with OurNotes.

RESULTS

Out of 503 visits, 134 (26%) OurNotes questionnaires were completed. Most respondents (n = 92; 69%) identified as the patient, 18 (14%) identified as the patient with help, and 24 (17%) identified as someone other than the patient. On average, patients who authored their own OurNotes were younger (80.9 years) compared to patients who received assistance (85.8 years), or patients for whom someone else authored OurNotes (87.8 years) (p < 0.001). A diagnosis of cognitive impairment was present among 20% of patients who self-authored OurNotes vs. 79% of patients where someone else authored OurNotes (p < 0.001). Topics differed when OurNotes was authored by patients vs. nonpatients. Symptoms (52% patient vs. 83% nonpatient, p = 0.004), community resources (6% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), dementia (5% vs. 21%, p = 0.009), and care partner concerns (1% vs. 12%, p = 0.002) were more often mentioned by nonpatients. Clinicians valued the self-identification question for increasing transparency about who provided information.

CONCLUSIONS

A self-identification question can identify nonpatient authors of OurNotes. Future steps include evaluating whether transparency improves care quality, especially when care partners are involved.

Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act enables patients to access their medical records, thus providing a unique opportunity to engage patients in their diagnostic journey.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the concordance between patients' self-reported diagnostic concerns and clinician-interpreted information in their electronic health records.

DESIGN

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of a cohort of 467 patients who completed a structured data collection instrument (the Safer Dx Patient) to identify diagnostic concerns while reviewing their clinician's notes. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses on both the tools and the case summaries. Two clinical chart reviewers, blinded to patient-reported diagnostic concerns, independently conducted chart reviews using a different structured instrument (the Revised Safer Dx Instrument) to identify diagnostic concerns and generate case summaries. The primary outcome variable was chart review-identified diagnostic concerns. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was concordant with patient-reported diagnostic concerns.

SETTING

Geisinger, a large integrated healthcare organization in rural and semi-urban Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Cohort of adult patients actively using patient portals and identified as "at-risk" for diagnostic concerns using an electronic trigger algorithm based on unexpected visit patterns in a primary care setting.

RESULTS

In 467 cohort patients, chart review identified 31 (6.4%) diagnostic concerns, of which only 11 (21.5%) overlapped with 51 patient-reported diagnostic concerns. Content analysis revealed several areas of discordant understanding of the diagnostic process between clinicians and patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinician-identified diagnostic concerns were associated with patients who self-reported "I feel I was incorrectly diagnosed during my visit" (odds ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.3, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients and clinicians appear to have certain differences in their mental models of what is considered a diagnostic concern. Efforts to integrate patient perspectives and experiences with the diagnostic process can lead to better measurement of diagnostic safety.

Exploring potential drivers of patient engagement with their health data through digital platforms: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement when providing patient access to health data results from an interaction between the available tools and individual capabilities. The recent digital advancements of the healthcare field have altered the manifestation and importance of patient engagement. However, a comprehensive assessment of what factors contribute to patient engagement remain absent. In this review article, we synthesised the most frequently discussed factors that can foster patient engagement with their health data.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were synthesized within 7 layers using a thematic analysis: (1) social and demographic factors, (2) patient ability factors, (3) patient motivation factors, (4) factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, (5) health system factors, (6) technological factors, and (7) policy factors.

RESULTS

We identified 5801 academic and 200 Gy literature records, and included 292 (4.83%) in this review. Overall, 44 factors that can affect patient engagement with their health data were extracted. We extracted 6 social and demographic factors, 6 patient ability factors, 12 patient motivation factors, 7 factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, 4 health system factors, 6 technological factors, and 3 policy factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving patient engagement with their health data enables the development of patient-centered healthcare, though it can also exacerbate existing inequities. While expanding patient access to health data is an important step towards fostering shared decision-making in healthcare and subsequently empowering patients, it is important to ensure that these developments reach all sectors of the community.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Adverse events and perceived abandonment: learning from patients' accounts of medical mishaps

BACKGROUND

Adverse medical events affect 10% of American households annually, inducing a variety of harms and attitudinal changes. The impact of adverse events on perceived abandonment by patients and their care partners has not been methodically assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To identify ways in which providers, patients and families responded to medical mishaps, linking these qualitatively and statistically to reported feelings of abandonment and sequelae induced by perceived abandonment.

METHODS

Mixed-methods analysis of responses to the Massachusetts Medical Errors Recontact survey with participants reporting a medical error within the past 5 years. The survey consisted of forty closed and open-ended questions examining adverse medical events and their consequences. Respondents were asked whether they felt 'that the doctors abandoned or betrayed you or your family'. Open-ended responses were analysed with a coding schema by two clinician coders.

RESULTS

Of the 253 respondents, 34.5% initially and 20% persistently experienced abandonment. Perceived abandonment could be traced to interactions before (18%), during (34%) and after (45%) the medical mishap. Comprehensive post-incident communication reduced abandonment for patients staying with the provider associated with the mishap. However, 68.4% of patients perceiving abandonment left their original provider; for them, post-error communication did not increase the probability of resolution. Abandonment accounted for half the post-event loss of trust in clinicians.

LIMITATIONS

Survey-based data may under-report the impact of perceived errors on vulnerable populations. Moreover, patients may not be cognizant of all forms of adverse events or all sequelae to those events. Our data were drawn from a single state and time period.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the deleterious impact of persisting abandonment merits attention in programmes responding to patient safety concerns. Enhancing patient engagement in the aftermath of an adverse medical event has the potential to reinforce therapeutic alliances between patients and their subsequent clinicians.

When Bad News Comes Through the Portal: Strengthening Trust and Guiding Patients When They Receive Bad Results Before Their Clinicians

Communication in oncology was challenging long before the emergence of the US 21st Century Cures Act. Before 2021, a growing body of evidence had demonstrated the benefits of patients' access to and review of the clinical notes in their charts (open notes); however, studies examining the benefits of immediate access to test results were scarce until the implementation of the Cures Act's Information Blocking Rule. Individuals grappling with cancer today now possess immediate access to their laboratory results, imaging scans, diagnostic tests, and progress notes as mandated by law. To many clinicians, the implementation of the Cures Act felt sudden and presented new challenges and concerns for oncologists surrounding patients' potential emotional reactions to medical notes or lack of control over the careful delivery of potentially life-changing information. Despite data that show most patients want immediate access to information in their records before it is communicated directly by a health care professional, surveys of oncologists showed trepidation. In this chapter, perspectives from a patient with cancer, an oncologist, and a cancer psychiatrist (in that order) are shared to illuminate the adjustments made in clinician-patient communication amid the era of nearly instantaneous results within the electronic health record.

Real world challenges in maintaining data integrity in electronic health records in a cancer program

Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems increase clerical workload, promote copy-paste and error propagation. Documentation error rate in cancer diagnosis and treatment was examined in 776 patient records. Fifteen percent of the charts contained an error. Modern EHR systems, patient portals and engagement tools may facilitate the maintenance of accurate information.

Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

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

OBJECTIVES

Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on close collaboration between patients/families and clinicians. Just as patients have unique insights into diagnostic breakdowns, positive patient feedback may also generate broader perspectives on what constitutes a "good" diagnostic process (DxP).

METHODS

We evaluated patient/family feedback on "what's going well" as part of an online pre-visit survey designed to engage patients/families in the DxP. Patients/families living with chronic conditions with visits in three urban pediatric subspecialty clinics (site 1) and one rural adult primary care clinic (site 2) were invited to complete the survey between December 2020 and March 2022. We adapted the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to conduct a qualitative analysis on a subset of patient/family responses with ≥20 words.

RESULTS

In total, 7,075 surveys were completed before 18,129 visits (39 %) at site 1, and 460 surveys were completed prior to 706 (65 %) visits at site 2. Of all participants, 1,578 volunteered positive feedback, ranging from 1-79 words. Qualitative analysis of 272 comments with ≥20 words described: Relationships (60 %), Clinical Care (36 %), and Environment (4 %). Compared to primary care, subspecialty comments showed the same overall rankings. Within Relationships, patients/families most commonly noted: thorough and competent attention (46 %), clear communication and listening (41 %) and emotional support and human connection (39 %). Within Clinical Care, patients highlighted: timeliness (31 %), effective clinical management (30 %), and coordination of care (25 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients/families valued relationships with clinicians above all else in the DxP, emphasizing the importance of supporting clinicians to nurture effective relationships and relationship-centered care in the DxP.

Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care

OBJECTIVES

In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients' and care partners' perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy.

METHODS

In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively.

RESULTS

A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients' subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor's opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team's attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy.

IMPLICATIONS

As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice.

HIGHLIGHTS

An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care.In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have.We introduce "patient reasoning" in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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