Medical diagnosis - the promise

Imagining the future of diagnostic performance feedback

Diagnostic performance is uniquely challenging to measure, and providing feedback on diagnostic performance to catalyze diagnostic recalibration remains the exception to the rule in healthcare. Diagnostic accuracy, timeliness, and explanation to the patient are essential dimensions of diagnostic performance that each intersect with a variety of technical, contextual, cultural, and policy barriers. Setting aside assumptions about current constraints, we explore the future of diagnostic performance feedback by describing the "minimum viable products" and the "ideal state" solutions that can be envisioned for each of several important barriers. Only through deliberate and iterative approaches to breaking down these barriers can we improve recalibration and continuously drive the healthcare ecosystem towards diagnostic excellence.

Academic-Community Hospital Comparison of Vulnerabilities in Door-to-Needle Process for Acute Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Although best practices have been developed for achieving door-to-needle (DTN) times ≤60 minutes for stroke thrombolysis, critical DTN process failures persist. We sought to compare these failures in the Emergency Department at an academic medical center and a community hospital.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Failure modes effects and criticality analysis was used to identify system and process failures. Multidisciplinary teams involved in DTN care participated in moderated sessions at each site. As a result, DTN process maps were created and potential failures and their causes, frequency, severity, and existing safeguards were identified. For each failure, a risk priority number and criticality score were calculated; failures were then ranked, with the highest scores representing the most critical failures and targets for intervention. We detected a total of 70 failures in 50 process steps and 76 failures in 42 process steps at the community hospital and academic medical center, respectively. At the community hospital, critical failures included (1) delay in registration because of Emergency Department overcrowding, (2) incorrect triage diagnosis among walk-in patients, and (3) delay in obtaining consent for thrombolytic treatment. At the academic medical center, critical failures included (1) incorrect triage diagnosis among walk-in patients, (2) delay in stroke team activation, and (3) delay in obtaining computed tomographic imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the identification of common critical failures suggests opportunities for a generalizable process redesign, differences in the criticality and nature of failures must be addressed at the individual hospital level, to develop robust and sustainable solutions to reduce DTN time.

Pre-referral GP consultations in patients subsequently diagnosed with rarer cancers: a study of patient-reported data

BACKGROUND

Some patients with cancer experience multiple pre-diagnostic consultations in primary care, leading to longer time intervals to specialist investigations and diagnosis. Patients with rarer cancers are thought to be at higher risk of such events, but concrete evidence of this is lacking.

AIM

To examine the frequency and predictors of repeat consultations with GPs in patients with rarer cancers.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Patient-reported data on pre-referral consultations from three English national surveys of patients with cancer (2010, 2013, and 2014), pooled to maximise the sample size of rarer cancers.

METHOD

The authors examined the frequency and crude and adjusted odds ratios for ≥3 (versus 1-2) pre-referral consultations by age, sex, ethnicity, level of deprivation, and cancer diagnosis (38 diagnosis groups, including 12 rarer cancers without prior relevant evidence).

RESULTS

Among 7838 patients with 12 rarer cancers, crude proportions of patients with ≥3 pre-referral consultations ranged from >30.0% to 60.0% for patients with small intestine, bone sarcoma, liver, gallbladder, cancer of unknown primary, soft-tissue sarcoma, and ureteric cancer. The range was 15.0-30.0% for patients with oropharyngeal, anal, parotid, penile, and oral cancer. The overall proportion of responders with any cancer who had ≥3 consultations was 23.4%. Multivariable logistic regression indicated concordant patterns, with strong evidence for variation between rarer cancers (P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with rarer cancers experience pre-referral consultations at frequencies suggestive of middle-to-high diagnostic difficulty. The findings can guide the development of new diagnostic interventions and 'safety-netting' approaches for symptomatic presentations encountered in patients with rarer cancers.