Comparative Perspectives on Diagnostic Error Discussions Between Inpatient and Outpatient Pediatric Providers

Diagnostic error remains understudied and underaddressed despite causing significant morbidity and mortality. One barrier to addressing this issue remains provider discomfort. Survey studies have shown significantly more discomfort among providers in discussing diagnostic error compared with other forms of error. Whether the comfort in discussing diagnostic error differs depending on practice setting has not been previously studied. The objective of this study was to assess differences in provider willingness to discuss diagnostic error in the inpatient versus outpatient setting. A multicenter survey was sent out to 3881 providers between May and June 2018. This survey was designed to assess comfort level of discussing diagnostic error and looking at barriers to discussing diagnostic error. Forty-three percent versus 22% of inpatient versus outpatient providers (P = 0.004) were comfortable discussing short-term diagnostic error publicly. Similarly, 76% versus 60% of inpatient versus outpatient providers (P = 0.010) were comfortable discussing short-term diagnostic error privately. A higher percentage of inpatient (64%) compared with outpatient providers (46%) (P = 0.043) were comfortable discussing long-term diagnostic error privately. Forty percent versus 24% of inpatient versus outpatient providers (P = 0.018) were comfortable discussing long-term error publicly. No difference in barriers cited depending on practice setting. Inpatient providers are more comfortable discussing diagnostic error than their outpatient counterparts. More study is needed to determine the etiology of this discrepancy and to develop strategies to increase outpatient provider comfort.

Developing the Safer Dx Checklist of Ten Safety Recommendations for Health Care Organizations to Address Diagnostic Errors

BACKGROUND

Most health care organizations (HCOs) find diagnostic errors hard to address. The research team developed a checklist (the Safer Dx Checklist) of 10 high-priority safety practices HCOs can use to conduct a proactive risk assessment to address diagnostic error.

METHODS

First, the team identified potential practices based on reviews of recent literature, reports by national and international organizations, and interviews with quality/safety leaders. Then a Delphi panel was conducted, followed by an online expert panel, to prioritize 10 practices. The prioritization process considered impact on safety and feasibility of practice implementation within a one- to three-year time frame. Finally, cognitive walkthroughs were conducted for a face-validity check with end users. The team also conducted content analysis in each step to look for themes that influenced prioritization or checklist implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 71 practices for prioritization were identified through the Delphi panel of 28 experts; 65% of participants reached consensus on 28 practices. A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts helped prioritize and refine the top 10 practices, which were then developed into a checklist paired with implementation guidance. Practices included themes related to creating organizational and leadership accountability for improving diagnosis, including patients in diagnostic safety work, and developing and implementing organizational infrastructure for measurement and improvement activities. Qualitative analysis revealed insights for implementation. End users at three different HCOs helped refine implementation guidance for the checklist.

CONCLUSION

The researchers identified 10 safety practices to help organizations conduct a proactive, systematic assessment of risks to timely and accurate diagnosis. The Safer Dx Checklist can enable HCOs to begin implementing strategies to address diagnostic error.

Perception regarding health and barriers to seeking healthcare services among rural rickshaw pullers in Bangladesh: A qualitative exploration

Background

Understanding health in daily life can vary from person to person. The concept of health arises from the perspective of an individual's experience. People face several kinds of barriers while seeking healthcare services, where rickshaw pullers are one of the most vulnerable groups to meet their basic health needs. This study aimed to investigate Bangladeshi rural rickshaw pullers' perception regarding health and what obstacles they face while seeking healthcare services.

Methods

This study followed a qualitative approach conducted in-depth interviews involving 20 rickshaw pullers in rural Bangladesh from 4th to 15th December 2020. Participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The verbatim transcription was performed, and the thematic analysis was done through manual coding and NVivo version 12.

Results

According to the study's findings, participants' perception regarding health were mainly based on physical, nutritional, and social points of view. The financial hardship to convey medical costs, long waiting time in receiving healthcare services, social class inequality, low trustworthiness on diagnostic services, and mastery of broker in the hospital setting were acknowledged as prevailing barriers to seeking healthcare services.

Conclusion

Several health perceptions existed among the rural rickshaw pullers. They faced different kinds of barriers while seeking healthcare services, and those obstacles made them hopeless and worried about getting quality healthcare services. Concerned authorities, including government and private organizations, should take effective strategies to ensure that healthcare services are available, reliable, and affordable.

Diagnostic Error in Neuro-ophthalmology: Avenues to Improve

Purpose of Review

To highlight potential avenues to reduce preventable diagnostic error of neuro-ophthalmic conditions and avoid patient harm.

Recent Findings

Recent prospective studies and studies of patient harm have advanced our understanding. Additionally, recent studies of fundus photography, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence highlight potential avenues for diagnostic improvement.

Summary

Diagnostic error of neuro-ophthalmic conditions can often be traced to failure to gather an adequate history, perform a complete physical exam, obtain adequate/appropriate neuroimaging, and generate a complete, appropriate differential diagnosis. Improving triage and identification of neuro-ophthalmic conditions by other providers and increasing access to subspecialty neuro-ophthalmology evaluation are essential avenues to reduce diagnostic error. Further research should evaluate the relationship between misdiagnosis and patient harm, and help identify the most impactful potential targets for improvement.

Crossing Academic Boundaries for Diagnostic Safety: 10 Complex Challenges and Potential Solutions From Clinical Perspectives and High-Reliability Organizing Principles

OBJECTIVE

We apply the high-reliability organization (HRO) paradigm to the diagnostic process, outlining challenges to enacting HRO principles in diagnosis and offering solutions for how diagnostic process stakeholders can overcome these barriers.

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that healthcare is starting to organize for higher reliability by employing various principles and practices of HRO. These hold promise for enhancing safer care, but there has been little consideration of the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face while enacting HRO principles in the diagnostic process. To effectively deploy the HRO perspective, these barriers must be seriously considered.

METHOD

We review key principles of the HRO paradigm, the diagnostic errors and harms that potentially can be prevented by its enactment, the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face in executing various principles and practices, and possible solutions that clinicians and organizational leaders can take to overcome these challenges and barriers.

RESULTS

Our analyses reveal multiple challenges including the inherent diagnostic uncertainty; the lack of diagnosis-focused performance feedback; the fact that diagnosis is often a solo, rather than team, activity; the tendency to simplify the diagnostic process; and professional and institutional status hierarchies. But these challenges are not insurmountable-there are strategies and solutions available to overcome them.

CONCLUSION

The HRO lens offers some important ideas for how the safety of the diagnostic process can be improved.

APPLICATION

The ideas proposed here can be enacted by both individual clinicians and healthcare leaders; both are necessary for making systematic progress in enhancing diagnostic performance.

A survey of outpatient Internal Medicine clinician perceptions of diagnostic error

Background Little is known about how practicing Internal Medicine (IM) clinicians perceive diagnostic error, and whether perceptions are in agreement with the published literature. Methods A 16-question survey was administered across two IM practices: one a referral practice providing care for patients traveling for a second opinion and the other a traditional community-based primary care practice. Our aim was to identify individual- and system-level factors contributing to diagnostic error (primary outcome) and conditions at greatest risk of diagnostic error (secondary outcome). Results Sixty-five of 125 clinicians surveyed (51%) responded. The most commonly perceived individual factors contributing to diagnostic error included atypical patient presentations (83%), failure to consider other diagnoses (63%) and inadequate follow-up of test results (53%). The most commonly cited system-level factors included cognitive burden created by the volume of data in the electronic health record (EHR) (68%), lack of time to think (64%) and systems that do not support collaboration (40%). Conditions felt to be at greatest risk of diagnostic error included cancer (46%), pulmonary embolism (43%) and infection (37%). Conclusions Inadequate clinician time and sub-optimal patient and test follow-up are perceived by IM clinicians to be persistent contributors to diagnostic error. Clinician perceptions of conditions at greatest risk of diagnostic error may differ from the published literature.

Characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving emergency medicine physicians

BACKGROUND

Identifying characteristics of malpractice claims involving emergency medicine (EM) physicians allows leaders to develop patient safety initiatives to prevent future harm events.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of paid/unpaid claims closed 2007 to 2016 from Comparative Benchmarking System. Claims were identified by physician specialty involved (EM, internal medicine, general surgery). Various characteristics were compared by physician specialty. Multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with claim payment, in which (1) physician specialty was included as a predictor and (2) only the subset involving EM physicians was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 54,772 claims, 2760 involved EM physicians, 5886 involved internists, and 3207 involved surgeons. Death was the most common severity among EM claims (34%). Diagnosis-related allegations accounted for 58%, higher than 42% and 11% of claims involving internists and surgeons, respectively (P < 0.0001). Thirty-one percent was paid. The median indemnity paid on behalf of any defendant was $206,261 (interquartile range $55,065-527,651). The most common final diagnoses were myocardial infarction (2%), pulmonary embolus (2%), and cardiac arrest (2%). Procedure-related claims were associated with increased payment likelihood (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.34).

CONCLUSION

Malpractice claims in EM are often diagnosis- or procedure related. Our findings suggest that diagnostic accuracy and procedural competency should shape future quality improvement work.

Pediatric Clinician Comfort Discussing Diagnostic Errors for Improving Patient Safety: A Survey

INTRODUCTION

Meaningful conversations about diagnostic errors require safety cultures where clinicians are comfortable discussing errors openly. However, clinician comfort discussing diagnostic errors publicly and barriers to these discussions remain unexplored. We compared clinicians' comfort discussing diagnostic errors to other medical errors and identified barriers to open discussion.

METHODS

Pediatric clinicians at 4 hospitals were surveyed between May and June 2018. The survey assessed respondents' comfort discussing medical errors (with varying degrees of system versus individual clinician responsibility) during morbidity and mortality conferences and privately with peers. Respondents reported the most significant barriers to discussing diagnostic errors publicly. Poststratification weighting accounted for nonresponse bias; the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment was applied to control for false discovery (significance set at P < 0.018).

RESULTS

Clinicians (n = 838; response rate 22.6%) were significantly less comfortable discussing all error types during morbidity and mortality conferences than privately (P < 0.004) and significantly less comfortable discussing diagnostic errors compared with other medical errors (P < 0.018). Comfort did not differ by clinician type or years in practice; clinicians at one institution were significantly less comfortable discussing diagnostic errors compared with peers at other institutions. The most frequently cited barriers to discussing diagnostic errors publicly included feeling like a bad clinician, loss of reputation, and peer judgment of knowledge base and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are more uncomfortable discussing diagnostic errors than other types of medical errors. The most frequent barriers involve the public perception of clinical performance. Addressing this aspect of safety culture may improve clinician participation in efforts to reduce harm from diagnostic errors.

The new diagnostic team

The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in the recently issued report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care outlined eight major recommendations to improve the quality and safety of diagnosis. The #1 recommendation was to improve teamwork in the diagnostic process. This is a major departure from the classical approach, where the physician is solely responsible for diagnosis. In the new, patient-centric vision, the core team encompasses the patient, the physician and the associated nursing staff, with each playing an active role in the process. The expanded diagnostic team includes pathologists, radiologists, allied health professionals, medical librarians, and others. We review the roles that each of these team members will need to assume, and suggest “first steps” that each new team member can take to achieve this new dynamic.