Closing the loop on test results to reduce communication failures: a rapid review of evidence, practice and patient perspectives

The PRIDx framework to engage payers in reducing diagnostic errors in healthcare

OBJECTIVES

No framework currently exists to guide how payers and providers can collaboratively develop and implement incentives to improve diagnostic safety. We conducted a literature review and interviews with subject matter experts to develop a multi-component 'Payer Relationships for Improving Diagnoses (PRIDx)' framework, that could be used to engage payers in diagnostic safety efforts.

CONTENT

The PRIDx framework, 1) conceptualizes diagnostic safety links to care provision, 2) illustrates ways to promote payer and provider engagement in the design and adoption of accountability mechanisms, and 3) explicates the use of data analytics. Certain approaches suggested by PRIDx were refined by subject matter expert interviewee perspectives.

SUMMARY

The PRIDx framework can catalyze public and private payers to take specific actions to improve diagnostic safety.

OUTLOOK

Implementation of the PRIDx framework requires new types of partnerships, including external support from public and private payer organizations, and requires creation of strong provider incentives without undermining providers' sense of professionalism and autonomy. PRIDx could help facilitate collaborative payer-provider approaches to improve diagnostic safety and generate research concepts, policy ideas, and potential innovations for engaging payers in diagnostic safety improvement activities.

Common contributing factors of diagnostic error: A retrospective analysis of 109 serious adverse event reports from Dutch hospitals

INTRODUCTION

Although diagnostic errors have gained renewed focus within the patient safety domain, measuring them remains a challenge. They are often measured using methods that lack information on decision-making processes given by involved physicians (eg, record reviews). The current study analyses serious adverse event (SAE) reports from Dutch hospitals to identify common contributing factors of diagnostic errors in hospital medicine. These reports are the results of thorough investigations by highly trained, independent hospital committees into the causes of SAEs. The reports include information from involved healthcare professionals and patients or family obtained through interviews.

METHODS

All 71 Dutch hospitals were invited to participate in this study. Participating hospitals were asked to send four diagnostic SAE reports of their hospital. Researchers applied the Safer Dx Instrument, a Generic Analysis Framework, the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy and the Eindhoven Classification Model (ECM) to analyse reports.

RESULTS

Thirty-one hospitals submitted 109 eligible reports. Diagnostic errors most often occurred in the diagnostic testing, assessment and follow-up phases according to the DEER taxonomy. The ECM showed human errors as the most common contributing factor, especially relating to communication of results, task planning and execution, and knowledge. Combining the most common DEER subcategories and the most common ECM classes showed that clinical reasoning errors resulted from failures in knowledge, and task planning and execution. Follow-up errors and errors with communication of test results resulted from failures in coordination and monitoring, often accompanied by usability issues in electronic health record design and missing protocols.

DISCUSSION

Diagnostic errors occurred in every hospital type, in different specialties and with different care teams. While clinical reasoning errors remain a common problem, often caused by knowledge and skill gaps, other frequent errors in communication of test results and follow-up require different improvement measures (eg, improving technological systems).

An Evolution of Reporting: Identifying the Missing Link

In recent years, radiologic imaging has undergone tremendous technological advances and is now a pillar of diagnostic and treatment algorithms in clinical medicine. The increased complexity and volume of medical imaging has led clinicians to become ever more reliant on radiologists to both identify and interpret patient studies. A radiologist’s report provides key insights into a patient’s immediate state of health, information that is vital when choosing the most appropriate next steps in management. As errors in imaging interpretation or miscommunication of results can greatly impair patient care, identifying common error sources is vital to minimizing their occurrence. Although mistakes in medical imaging are practically inevitable, changes to the delivery of imaging reporting and the addition of artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze clinicians’ communication skills can minimize the impact of these errors, keep up with the continuously evolving landscape of medical imaging, and ultimately close the communication gap.