Electronic health record reviews to measure diagnostic uncertainty in primary care

被引:16
|
作者
Bhise, Viraj [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Rajan, Suja S. [3 ]
Sittig, Dean F. [5 ,6 ]
Vaghani, Viralkumar [1 ,2 ]
Morgan, Robert O. [3 ]
Khanna, Arushi [1 ,2 ]
Singh, Hardeep [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Michael E DeBakey VA Med Ctr, Ctr Innovat Qual Effectiveness & Safety, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Texas Houston, Sch Publ Hlth, Houston, TX USA
[4] Univ Hawaii Manoa, John A Burns Sch Med, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA
[5] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Sch Biomed Informat, Houston, TX USA
[6] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, UT Mem Hermann Ctr Hlth Care Qual & Safety, Houston, TX USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
diagnostic error; diagnostic process; diagnostic uncertainty; measurement; primary care; MANAGING UNCERTAINTY; PHYSICIANS REACTIONS; DECISION-SUPPORT; PATIENT; ERRORS; ACCURACY; SCIENCE; QUALITY; INTERVENTION; EXPRESSIONS;
D O I
10.1111/jep.12912
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Rationale, aims and objectivesDiagnostic uncertainty is common in primary care. Because it is challenging to measure, there is inadequate scientific understanding of diagnostic decision-making during uncertainty. Our objective was to understand how diagnostic uncertainty was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and explore a strategy to retrospectively identify it using clinician documentation. MethodsWe reviewed the literature to identify documentation language that could identify both direct expression and indirect inference of diagnostic uncertainty and designed an instrument to facilitate record review. Direct expression included clinician's use of question marks, differential diagnoses, symptoms as diagnosis, or vocabulary such as probably, maybe, likely, unclear or unknown, while describing the diagnosis. Indirect inference included absence of documented diagnosis at the end of the visit, ordering of multiple consultations or diagnostic tests to resolve diagnostic uncertainty, and use of suspended judgement, test of treatment, and risk-averse disposition. Two physician-reviewers independently reviewed notes on a sample of outpatient visits to identify diagnostic uncertainty at the end of the visit. Documented Ninth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) diagnosis codes and note quality were assessed. ResultsOf 389 patient records reviewed, 218 had evidence of diagnostic activity and were included. In 156 visits (71.6%), reviewers identified clinicians who experienced diagnostic uncertainty with moderate inter-reviewer agreement (81.7%; Cohen's kappa: 0.609). Most cases (125, 80.1%) showed evidence of both direct expression and indirect inference. Uncertainty was directly expressed in 139 (89.1%) cases, most commonly by using symptoms as diagnosis (98, 62.8%), and inferred in 144 (92.3%). In more than 1/3 of visits (58, 37.2%), diagnostic uncertainty was recorded inappropriately using ICD-9 codes. ConclusionsWhile current diagnosis coding mechanisms (ICD-9 and ICD-10) are unable to capture uncertainty, our study finds that review of EHR documentation can help identify diagnostic uncertainty with moderate reliability. Better measurement and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty could help inform strategies to improve the safety and efficiency of diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页码:545 / 551
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [32] MONITORING THE PULSE OF HOSPITAL ACTIVITY: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD UTILIZATION AS A MEASURE OF CARE INTENSITY
    Blecker, Saul
    Austrian, Jonathan
    Shine, Daniel
    Braithwaite, R. Scott
    Radford, Martha J.
    Gourevitch, Marc N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 28 : S122 - S122
  • [33] Health reviews for primary care providers
    Dunikowski, L
    [J]. CANADIAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 1996, 42 : 2230 - 2230
  • [34] The PROMPT electronic health care record
    Lagouarde, P
    Thomson, R
    RenaudSalis, JL
    Ferguson, P
    Hajnal, S
    Robles, P
    [J]. MEDICAL INFORMATICS EUROPE '96: HUMAN FACETS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, 1996, 34 : 1055 - 1059
  • [35] Weighting Primary Care Patient Panel Size: A Novel Electronic Health Record-Derived Measure Using Machine Learning
    Rajkomar, Alvin
    Yim, Joanne Wing Lan
    Grumbach, Kevin
    Parekh, Ami
    [J]. JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2016, 4 (04) : 3 - 15
  • [36] Extended use of electronic health records by primary care physicians: Does the electronic health record artefact matter?
    Raymond, Louis
    Pare, Guy
    Marchand, Marie
    [J]. HEALTH INFORMATICS JOURNAL, 2019, 25 (01) : 71 - 82
  • [37] Explaining Variability in Electronic Health Record Effort in Primary Care Ambulatory Encounters
    Overhage, J. Marc
    Qeadan, Fares
    Choi, Eun Ho Eunice
    Vos, Duncan
    Kroth, Philip J.
    [J]. APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS, 2024, 15 (02): : 212 - 219
  • [38] Underrecording of osteoarthritis in United Kingdom primary care electronic health record data
    Yu, Dahai
    Jordan, Kelvin P.
    Peat, George
    [J]. CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 10 : 1195 - 1201
  • [39] Clinician characteristics and use of novel electronic health record functionality in primary care
    Linder, Jeffrey A.
    Rigotti, Nancy A.
    Schneider, Louise I.
    Kelley, Jennifer H. K.
    Brawarsky, Phyllis
    Schnipper, Jeffrey L.
    Middleton, Blackford
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2011, 18 : I87 - I90
  • [40] Measuring Primary Care Exam Length Using Electronic Health Record Data
    Neprash, Hannah T.
    Everhart, Alexander
    McAlpine, Donna
    Smith, Laura Barrie
    Sheridan, Bethany
    Cross, Dori A.
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 2021, 59 (01) : 62 - 66