Resilient actions in the diagnostic process and system performance

Variation in electronic test results management and its implications for patient safety: A multisite investigation

Objective

The management and follow-up of diagnostic test results is a major patient safety concern. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how clinicians manage test results on an everyday basis (work-as-done) in a health information technology–enabled emergency department setting. The objectives were to identify (1) variations in work-as-done in test results management and (2) the strategies clinicians use to ensure optimal management of diagnostic test results.

Materials and Methods

Qualitative interviews (n = 26) and field observations were conducted across 3 Australian emergency departments. Interview data coded for results management (ie, tracking, acknowledgment, and follow-up), and artifacts, were reviewed to identify variations in descriptions of work-as-done. Thematic analysis was performed to identify common themes.

Results

Despite using the same test result management application, there were variations in how the system was used. We identified 5 themes relating to electronic test results management: (1) tracking test results, (2) use and understanding of system functionality, (3) visibility of result actions and acknowledgment, (4) results inbox use, and (5) challenges associated with the absence of an inbox for results notifications for advanced practice nurses.

Discussion

Our findings highlight that variations in work-as-done can function to overcome perceived impediments to managing test results in a HIT-enabled environment and thus identify potential risks in the process. By illuminating work-as-done, we identified strategies clinicians use to enhance test result management including paper-based manual processes, cognitive reminders, and adaptive use of electronic medical record functionality.

Conclusions

Test results tracking and follow-up is a priority area in need of health information technology development and training to improve team-based collaboration/communication of results follow-up and diagnostic safety.

Operational measurement of diagnostic safety: state of the science

Reducing the incidence of diagnostic errors is increasingly a priority for government, professional, and philanthropic organizations. Several obstacles to measurement of diagnostic safety have hampered progress toward this goal. Although a coordinated national strategy to measure diagnostic safety remains an aspirational goal, recent research has yielded practical guidance for healthcare organizations to start using measurement to enhance diagnostic safety. This paper, concurrently published as an Issue Brief by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, issues a "call to action" for healthcare organizations to begin measurement efforts using data sources currently available to them. Our aims are to outline the state of the science and provide practical recommendations for organizations to start identifying and learning from diagnostic errors. Whether by strategically leveraging current resources or building additional capacity for data gathering, nearly all organizations can begin their journeys to measure and reduce preventable diagnostic harm.

Why do delays to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer occur? A mixed methods study of insights from Australian clinicians

AIMS

Delays in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment can impact survival. We explored reasons for delays experienced by patients with lung cancer to identify themes and strategies for improvement.

METHODS

We used national timeframe recommendations and standardized definitions to identify General Practitioners and specialists caring for 34 patients who experienced delays in our previous Medicare data linkage study. Clinicians participated in a survey and interview, including qualitative (exploratory, open-ended questions) and quantitative (rating scales) components. Exploratory content analysis, cross-case triangulation, and descriptive statistics were performed. Krippendorff's coefficient was used to assess level of agreement between clinicians and patients, and among clinicians, on perceived delays.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 out of 50 (54%) eligible clinicians participated (including 11 respiratory physicians and seven medical oncologists). Dominant themes for perceived causes of delay included referral barriers, limited General Practitioner (GP) awareness of subtle clinical presentations, insufficient radiology interpretation, and lack of cancer coordinators. "Unavoidable" delays may occur due to clinical circumstances. Awareness and uptake of referral and timeframe guidelines were low, with clinicians using professional networks over guidelines. There was no consistent agreement on perceived delays between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians (Krippendorff's coefficient .03 [P = .8]).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies for minimizing avoidable delays include efficient GP to specialist referral and more lung cancer coordinators to assist with patient expectations and waitlist management. Clinicians' reliance on experience, rather than guidelines, indicates need to review guideline utility. Raising awareness of benchmarks and unavoidable barriers may recalibrate perceptions of "delays" to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.

Recommendations for using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to help measure and improve diagnostic safety

The medical record continues to be one of the most useful and accessible sources of information to examine the diagnostic process. However, medical record review studies of diagnostic errors have often used subjective judgments and found low inter-rater agreement among reviewers when determining the presence or absence of diagnostic error. In our previous work, we developed a structured data-collection instrument, called the Safer Dx Instrument, consisting of objective criteria to improve the accuracy of assessing diagnostic errors in primary care. This paper proposes recommendations on how clinicians and health care organizations could use the Revised Safer Dx Instrument in identifying and understanding missed opportunities to make correct and timely diagnoses. The instrument revisions addressed both methodological and implementation issues identified during initial use and included refinements to the instrument to allow broader application across all health care settings. In addition to leveraging knowledge from piloting the instrument in several health care settings, we gained insights from multiple researchers who had used the instrument in studies involving emergency care, inpatient care and intensive care unit settings. This allowed us to enhance and extend the scope of this previously validated data collection instrument. In this paper, we describe the refinement process and provide recommendations for application and use of the Revised Safer Dx Instrument across a broad range of health care settings. The instrument can help users identify potential diagnostic errors in a standardized way for further analysis and safety improvement efforts as well as provide data for clinician feedback and reflection. With wider adoption and use by clinicians and health systems, the Revised Safer Dx Instrument could help propel the science of measuring and reducing diagnostic errors forward.

"Workin' on Our Night Moves": How Residents Prepare for Shift Handoffs

BACKGROUND

Poor-quality handoffs have been associated with serious patient consequences. Researchers and educators have answered the call with efforts to increase system safety and resilience by supporting handoffs using increased communication standardization. The focus on strategies for formalizing the content and delivery of patient handoffs has considerable intuitive appeal; however, broader conceptual framing is required to both improve the process and develop and implement effective measures of handoff quality.

METHODS

Cognitive task interviews were conducted with internal medicine and surgery residents at three geographically diverse US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Thirty-five residents participated in semistructured interviews using a recent handoff as a prompt for in-depth discussion of goals, strategies, and information needs. Transcribed interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Six cognitive tasks emerged during handoff preparation: (1) communicating status and care plan for each patient; (2) specifying tasks for the incoming night shift; (3) anticipating questions and problems likely to arise during the night shift; (4) streamlining patient care task load for the incoming resident; (5) prioritizing problems by acuity across the patient census, and (6) ensuring accurate and current documentation.

CONCLUSION

Our study advances the understanding of the influence of the cognitive tasks residents engage in as they prepare to hand off patients from day shift to night shift. Cognitive preparation for the handoff includes activities critical to effective coordination yet easily overlooked because they are not readily observable. The cognitive activities identified point to strategies for cognitive support via improved technology, organizational interventions, and enhanced training.

Test results management and distributed cognition in electronic health record-enabled primary care

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.

Cancer care coordination: opportunities for healthcare delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to explore issues related to care coordination at three points on the cancer care continuum: (1) screening, particularly coordinating follow-up for abnormal findings, (2) active treatment, particularly challenges for patients with multiple chronic conditions, and (3) survivorship, particularly issues related to facilitating shared care between oncology and primary care. For each point on the continuum, we briefly summarize some of the important coordination issues and discuss potential avenues for future research in the context of existing evidence.

A population management system for improving colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting

RATIONALE

Provision of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care is suboptimal; failure to observe screening guidelines poses unnecessary risks to patients and doctors.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Implement a population management system for CRC screening; evaluate impact on compliance with evidence-based guidelines.

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental, prospective quality improvement study design using pre-post-analyses with concurrent controls.

SETTING

Six suites within an academic primary care practice.

PARTICIPANTS

5320 adults eligible for CRC screening treated by 70 doctors.

INTERVENTION

In three intervention suites, doctors reviewed real-time rosters of patients due for CRC screening and chose practice delegate outreach or default reminder letter. Delegates tracked overdue patients, made outreach calls, facilitated test ordering, obtained records and documented patient deferral, exclusion or decline. In three control suites, doctors followed usual preventive care practices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CRC screening compliance (including documented decline, deferral or exclusion) and CRC screening completion rates over 5 months.

RESULTS

At baseline, there was no significant difference in CRC screening compliance (I: 80.4% and C: 79.6%, P = 0.439) and CRC screening completion rates (I: 78.3% and C: 77.3%, P = 0.398) between intervention and control groups. Post-intervention, compliance rates (I: 88.1% and C: 80.5%, P < 0.01) and completion rates (I: 81.0% and C: 78.1%, P < 0.05) were significantly higher in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

A population management system using closed-loop communication may improve CRC screening compliance and completion rates within academic primary care practices. Team-based care using well-designed IT systems can enable sharing of patient care responsibilities and improve patient outcomes.

Resilient Practices in Maintaining Safety of Health Information Technologies

Electronic health record systems (EHRs) can improve safety and reliability of health care, but they can also introduce new vulnerabilities by failing to accommodate changes within a dynamic EHR-enabled health care system. Continuous assessment and improvement is thus essential for achieving resilience in EHR-enabled health care systems. Given the rapid adoption of EHRs by many organizations that are still early in their experiences with EHR safety, it is important to understand practices for maintaining resilience used by organizations with a track record of success in EHR use. We conducted interviews about safety practices with 56 key informants (including information technology managers, chief medical information officers, physicians, and patient safety officers) at two large health care systems recognized as leaders in EHR use. We identified 156 references to resilience-related practices from 41 informants. Framework analysis generated five categories of resilient practices: (a) sensitivity to dynamics and interdependencies affecting risks, (b) basic monitoring and responding practices, (c) management of practices and resources for monitoring and responding, (d) sensitivity to risks beyond the horizon, and (e) reflecting on risks with the safety and quality control process itself. The categories reflect three functions that facilitate resilience: reflection, transcending boundaries, and involving sharp-end practitioners in safety management.