Missed diagnostic opportunities and English general practice: a study to determine their incidence, confounding and contributing factors and potential impact on patients through retrospective review of electronic medical records

Implementation Science

Carl de Wet²  Stephen Campbell³  Aneez Esmail¹  Morris Rebecca¹  Jill Stocks⁴  David Reeves¹  Hardeep Singh⁵  Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi¹ 

[1] Centre for Primary Care: Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;School of Medicine, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia;Centre for Research and Action in Public Health (CeRAPH), University of Canberra, Building 22, Floor B, University Drive, Bruce 2617, ACT, Australia;NIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;Houston Veterans Affairs Centre for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Centre and Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Blvd. 152, Houston 77030, 713.794.8601, TX, USA

关键词: General practice;    Diagnostic error;    Missed diagnostic opportunities;    Diagnoses;    Primary care;    Patient safety;   

Others  :  1228859
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0296-z

 received in 2015-07-17, accepted in 2015-07-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Patient safety research has focused largely on hospital settings despite the fact that in many countries, the majority of patient contacts are in primary care. The knowledge base about patient safety in primary care is developing but sparse and diagnostic error is a relatively understudied and an unmeasured area of patient safety. Diagnostic error rates vary according to how ‘error’ is defined but one suggested hallmark is clear evidence of ‘missed opportunity’ (MDOs) makes a correct or timely diagnosis to prevent them. While there is no agreed definition or method of measuring MDOs, retrospective manual chart or patient record reviews are a ‘gold standard’. This study protocol aims to (1) determine the incidence of MDOs in English general practice, (2) identify the confounding and contributing factors that lead to MDOs and (3) determine the (potential) impact of the detected MDOs on patients.

Methods/Design

We plan to conduct a two-phase retrospective review of electronic health records in the Greater Manchester (GM) area of the UK. In the first phase, clinician reviewers will calibrate their performance in identifying and assessing MDOs against a gold standard ‘primary reviewer’ through the use of ‘double’ reviews of records. The findings will enable a preliminary estimate of the incidence of MDOs in general practice, which will be used to calculate the number of records to be reviewed in the second phase in order to estimate the true incidence of MDO in general practice. A sample of 15 general practices is required for phase 1 and up to 35 practices for phase 2. In each practice, the sample will consist of 100 patients aged ≥18 years on 1 April 2013 who have attended a face-to-face ‘index consultation’ between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015. The index consultation will be selected randomly from each unique patient record, occurring between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014.

Discussion

There are no reliable estimates of safety problems related to diagnosis in English general practice. This study will lay the foundation for safety improvements in this area by providing a more reliable estimate of MDOs, their impact and their contributory factors.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Cheraghi-Sohi et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]To err is human: building a safer health system. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2000.
• [2]Wynia MK, Classen DC. Improving ambulatory patient safety: learning from the last decade, moving ahead in the next. JAMA. 2011; 306:2504-2505.
• [3]Lorincz CY, Drazen E, Sokol PE, Neerukonda KV, Metzger J, Toepp MC et al.. Research in ambulatory patient safety 2000–2010: a 10-year review. American Medical Association, Chicago IL; 2011.
• [4]Evidence scan: levels of harm. 2014.
• [5]Trends in consultation rates in general practice 1995 to 2008: analysis of the QResearch® database. 2009.
• [6]Campbell SR. SM tools for primary care patient safety: a narrative review. BMC Fam Pract. 2014; 15:166. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Hardeep S, Sittig DF. Setting the record straight on measuring diagnostic errors. Reply to: ‘Bad assumptions on primary care diagnostic errors’ by Dr Richard Young. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004140.
• [8]Sandars J, Esmail A. The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. BMC Fam Pract. 2003; 20:231-236.
• [9]Saber Tehrani AS, Lee H, Mathews SC, Shore A, Makary MA, Pronovost PJ et al.. 25-year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22(8):672-80.
• [10]Graber ML. Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005; 31:106-113.
• [11]Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22 Suppl 2:ii21-ii27.
• [12]Newman-Toker DE, McDonald KM, Meltzer DO. How much diagnostic safety can we afford, and how should we decide? A health economics perspective. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22:ii11-ii20.
• [13]Phillips RL, Bartholomew LA, Dovey SM, Fryer GE, Miyoshi TJ, Green LA. Learning from malpractice claims about negligent, adverse events in primary care in the United States. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2004; 13:121-126.
• [14]Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165:1493-1499.
• [15]Zwaan L, Thijs A, Wagner C, van der Wal G. Timmermans DlRM. Relating faults in diagnostic reasoning with diagnostic errors and patient harm. Acad Med. 2012;87.
• [16]Singh H. Helping organizations with defining diagnostic errors as missed opportunities in diagnosis. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014; 40:99-102.
• [17]Singh H, Weingart S. Diagnostic errors in ambulatory care: dimensions and preventive strategies. Adv in Health Sci Educ. 2009; 14:57-61.
• [18]Silk N. What went wrong in 1000 negligence claims. Health care risk report. Medical Protection Society, London; 2000.
• [19]Kostopoulou O, Delaney BC, Munro CW. Diagnostic difficulty and error in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2008; 25:400-413.
• [20]Zwaan L, Schiff GD, Singh H. Advancing the research agenda for diagnostic error reduction. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22 Suppl 2:ii52-ii57.
• [21]English indices of deprivation. 2015.
• [22]Singh H, Giardina T, Forjuoh S, Reid M, Kosmach S, Khan M et al.. Electronic health record-based surveillance of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2012; 21:93-100.
• [23]Singh H, Giardina T, Meyer AD, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013; 173:418-425.
• [24]Zwaan L, Singh H. The challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic error. Diagnosis. 2015; 2(2):97-103.
• [25]Quality improvement: theory and practice in health care. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, London; 2008.
• [26]Vincent C, Aylin P, Franklin B, Holmes A, Iskander S, Jacklin A et al.. Is health care getting safer? BMJ. 2008; 337:a2426.
• [27]Full study report, investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice: the PRACtICe study. 2012.
• [28]Amalberti R, Vincent C, Auroy Y, de Saint Maurice G. Violations and migrations in health care: a framework for understanding and management. QSHC. 2006; 15(suppl_1):i66-71.