Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Importance
Diagnostic errors are common and harmful, but difficult to define and measure. Measurement of diagnostic errors often depends on retrospective medical record reviews, frequently resulting in reviewer disagreement.Objectives
We aimed to test the accuracy of an instrument to help detect presence or absence of diagnostic error through record reviews.Design
We gathered questions from several previously used instruments for diagnostic error measurement, then developed and refined our instrument. We tested the accuracy of the instrument against a sample of patient records (n?=?389), with and without previously identified diagnostic errors (n?=?129 and n?=?260, respectively).Results
The final version of our instrument (titled Safer Dx Instrument) consisted of 11 questions assessing diagnostic processes in the patient-provider encounter and a main outcome question to determine diagnostic error. In comparison with the previous sample, the instrument yielded an overall accuracy of 84 %, sensitivity of 71 %, specificity of 90 %, negative predictive value of 86 %, and positive predictive value of 78 %. All 11 items correlated significantly with the instrument's error outcome question (all p values???0.01). Using factor analysis, the 11 questions clustered into two domains with high internal consistency (initial diagnostic assessment, and performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests) and a patient factor domain with low internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficients 0.93, 0.92, and 0.38, respectively).Conclusions
The Safer Dx Instrument helps quantify the likelihood of diagnostic error in primary care visits, achieving a high degree of accuracy for measuring their presence or absence. This instrument could be useful to identify high-risk cases for further study and quality improvement.
SUBMITTER: Al-Mutairi A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4870415 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Diagnostic errors (DEs), which encompass failures of accuracy, timeliness, or patient communication, cause appreciable morbidity but are understudied in pediatrics. Pediatricians have expressed interest in reducing high-frequency/subacute DEs, but their epidemiology remains unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate the frequency of two high-frequency/subacute DEs and one missed opportunity for diagnosis (MOD) in primary care pediatrics. METHODS:As part of a national quality improvement collaborative, 25 primary care pediatric practices were randomized to collect 5 months of retrospective data on one DE or MOD: elevated blood pressure (BP) and abnormal laboratory values (DEs), or adolescent depression evaluation (MOD). Relationships between DE or MOD proportions and patient age, gender, and insurance status were explored with mixed-effects logistic regression models. RESULTS:DE or MOD rates in pediatric primary care were found to be 54% for patients with elevated BP (n = 389), 11% for patients with abnormal laboratory values (n = 381), and 62% for adolescents with an opportunity to evaluate for depression (n = 400). When examining the number of times a pediatrician may have recognized an abnormal condition but either knowingly or unknowingly did not act according to recommended guidelines, providers did not document recognition of an elevated BP in 51% of patients with elevated BP, and they did not document recognition of an abnormal laboratory value without a delay in 9% of patients with abnormal laboratory values. CONCLUSIONS:DEs and MODs occur at an appreciable frequency in pediatric primary care. These errors may contribute to care delays and patient harm.
| S-EPMC5809238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigate the mechanisms of diagnostic error in primary care consultations to detect warning signs for possible error. We aim to identify places in the diagnostic reasoning process associated with major risk indicators. A qualitative study using semistructured interviews with open-ended questions. A 2-month study in primary care conducted in Oxfordshire, UK. We approached about 25 experienced general practitioners by email or word of mouth, 15 volunteered for the interviews and were available at a convenient time. Interview transcripts provided 45 cases of error. Three researchers searched these independently for underlying themes in relation to our conceptual framework. Locating steps in the diagnostic reasoning process associated with major risk of error and detecting warning signs that can alert clinicians to increased risk of error. Initiation and closure of the cognitive process are most exposed to risk of error. Cognitive biases developed early in the process lead to errors at the end. These warning signs can be used to alert clinicians to the increased risk of diagnostic error. Ignoring red flags or critical cues was related to processes being biased through the initial frame, but equally well, it could be explained by knowledge gaps. Cognitive biases developed at the initial framing of the problem relate to errors at the end of the process. We refer to these biases as warning signs that can alert clinicians to the increased risk of diagnostic error. We conclude that lack of knowledge is likely to be an important factor in diagnostic error. Reducing diagnostic errors in primary care should focus on early and systematic recognition of errors including near misses, and a continuing professional development environment that promotes reflection in action to highlight possible causes of process bias and of knowledge gaps.
| S-EPMC3467597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDiagnostic errors cause significant patient harm and increase costs. Data characterising such errors in the paediatric cardiac intensive care population are limited. We sought to understand the perceived frequency and types of diagnostic errors in the paediatric cardiac ICU. METHODS:Paediatric cardiac ICU practitioners including attending and trainee physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses at three North American tertiary cardiac centres were surveyed between October 2014 and January 2015. RESULTS:The response rate was 46% (N=200). Most respondents (81%) perceived that diagnostic errors harm patients more than five times per year. More than half (65%) reported that errors permanently harm patients, and up to 18% perceived that diagnostic errors contributed to death or severe permanent harm more than five times per year. Medication side effects and psychiatric conditions were thought to be most commonly misdiagnosed. Physician groups also ranked pulmonary overcirculation and viral illness to be commonly misdiagnosed as bacterial illness. Inadequate care coordination, data assessment, and high clinician workload were cited as contributory factors. Delayed diagnostic studies and interventions related to the severity of the patient's condition were thought to be the most commonly reported process breakdowns. All surveyed groups ranked improving teamwork and feedback pathways as strategies to explore for preventing future diagnostic errors. CONCLUSIONS:Paediatric cardiac intensive care practitioners perceive that diagnostic errors causing permanent harm are common and associated more with systematic and process breakdowns than with cognitive limitations.
| S-EPMC7271069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of self-diagnosis compared with a clinical diagnosis for common conditions in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Meta-analysisData sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL from inception to 25 January 2021.Study selectionEligible studies were prospective or retrospective studies comparing the results of self-diagnosis of common conditions in primary care to a relevant clinical diagnosis or laboratory reference standard test performed by a healthcare service provider. Studies that considered self-testing only were excluded.Data extractionTwo authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.Methods and results5047 records identified 18 studies for inclusion covering the self-diagnosis of three common conditions: vaginal infection (five studies), common skin conditions (four studies) and HIV (nine studies). No studies were found for any other condition. For self-diagnosis of vaginal infection and common skin conditions, meta-analysis was not appropriate and data were reported narratively. Nine studies, using point-of-care oral fluid tests, reported on the accuracy of self-diagnosis of HIV and data were pooled using bivariate meta-analysis methods. For these nine studies, the pooled sensitivity was 92.8% (95% CI, 86% to 96.5%) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.1% to 99.9%). Post hoc, the robustness of the pooled findings was tested in a sensitivity analysis only including four studies using laboratory testing as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity reduced to 87.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 92.2%) and the specificity remained the same. The quality of all 18 included studies was assessed as mixed and overall study methodology was not always well described.Conclusions and implications of key findingsOverall, there was a paucity of evidence. The current evidence does not support routine self-diagnosis for vaginal infections, common skin conditions and HIV in primary care.Prospero registration numberCRD42018110288.
| S-EPMC9835960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: To assess the accuracy of findings from the clinical history, symptoms, signs and diagnostic tests (ECG, CXR and natriuretic peptides) in relation to the diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in a primary care setting. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy systematic review, we searched Medline (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1988 to March 2008), Central, Cochrane and ZETOC using a diagnostic accuracy search filter. We included cross-sectional or cohort studies that assess the diagnostic utility of clinical history, symptoms, signs and diagnostic tests, against a reference standard of echocardiography. We calculated pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. RESULTS: 24 studies incorporating 10,710 patients were included. The median prevalence of LVSD was 29.9% (inter-quartile range 14% to 37%). No item from the clinical history or symptoms provided sufficient diagnostic information to "rule in" or "rule out" LVSD. Displaced apex beat shows a convincing diagnostic effect with a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 16.0 (8.2-30.9) but this finding occurs infrequently in patients. ECG was the most widely studied diagnostic test, the negative likelihood ratio ranging from 0.06 to 0.6. Natriuretic peptide results were strongly heterogeneous, with negative likelihood ratios ranging from 0.02 to 0.80. CONCLUSION: Findings from the clinical history and examination are insufficient to "rule in" or "rule out" a diagnosis of LVSD in primary care settings. BNP and ECG measurement appear to have similar diagnostic utility and are most useful in "ruling out" LVSD with a normal test result when the probability of LVSD is in the intermediate range.
| S-EPMC2569936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care administrative database research frequently uses standard medical codes to identify diagnoses or procedures. The aim of this review was to establish the diagnostic accuracy of codes used in administrative data research to identify nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) disease, including lung disease (NTMLD).MethodsWe searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2019. We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes to identify NTM disease and NTMLD. Studies were independently assessed by 2 researchers, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess bias and quality.ResultsWe identified 5549 unique citations. Of the 96 full-text articles reviewed, 7 eligible studies of moderate quality (3730 participants) were included in our review. The diagnostic accuracy of ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes to identify NTM disease varied widely across studies, with positive predictive values ranging from 38.2% to 100% and sensitivity ranging from 21% to 93%. For NTMLD, 4 studies reported diagnostic accuracy, with positive predictive values ranging from 57% to 64.6% and sensitivity ranging from 21% to 26.9%.ConclusionsDiagnostic accuracy measures of codes used in health care administrative data to identify patients with NTM varied across studies. Overall the positive predictive value of ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes alone is good, but the sensitivity is low; this method is likely to underestimate case numbers, reflecting the current limitations of coding systems to capture NTM diagnoses.
| S-EPMC8134528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify the predictive value of unexpected weight loss (WL) for cancer according to patient's age, sex, smoking status, and concurrent clinical features (symptoms, signs, and abnormal blood test results).DesignDiagnostic accuracy study.SettingClinical Practice Research Datalink electronic health records data linked to the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in primary care, England.Participants63 973 adults (≥18 years) with a code for unexpected WL from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2012.Main outcome measuresCancer diagnosis in the six months after the earliest weight loss code (index date). Codes for additional clinical features were identified in the three months before to one month after the index date. Diagnostic accuracy measures included positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive predictive values, and diagnostic odds ratios.ResultsOf 63 973 adults with unexpected WL, 37 215 (58.2%) were women, 33 167 (51.8%) were aged 60 years or older, and 16 793 (26.3%) were ever smokers. 908 (1.4%) had a diagnosis of cancer within six months of the index date, of whom 882 (97.1%) were aged 50 years or older. The positive predictive value for cancer was above the 3% threshold recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for urgent investigation in male ever smokers aged 50 years or older, but not in women at any age. 10 additional clinical features were associated with cancer in men with unexpected WL, and 11 in women. Positive likelihood ratios in men ranged from 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.32 to 2.62) for non-cardiac chest pain to 6.10 (3.44 to 10.79) for abdominal mass, and in women from 1.62 (1.15 to 2.29) for back pain to 20.9 (10.7 to 40.9) for jaundice. Abnormal blood test results associated with cancer included low albumin levels (4.67, 4.14 to 5.27) and raised values for platelets (4.57, 3.88 to 5.38), calcium (4.28, 3.05 to 6.02), total white cell count (3.76, 3.30 to 4.28), and C reactive protein (3.59, 3.31 to 3.89). However, no normal blood test result in isolation ruled out cancer. Clinical features co-occurring with unexpected WL were associated with multiple cancer sites.ConclusionThe risk of cancer in adults with unexpected WL presenting to primary care is 2% or less and does not merit investigation under current UK guidelines. However, in male ever smokers aged 50 years or older and in patients with concurrent clinical features, the risk of cancer warrants referral for invasive investigation. Clinical features typically associated with specific cancer sites are markers of several cancer types when they occur with unexpected WL.
| S-EPMC7424394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIdentification of people who have or are at risk of frailty enables targeted interventions, and the use of tools that screen for frailty using electronic records (which we term as validated electronic frailty measures (VEFMs)) within primary care is incentivised by NHS England. We carried out a systematic review to establish the sensitivity and specificity of available primary care VEFMs when compared to a reference standard in-person assessment.MethodsMedline, Pubmed, CENTRAL, CINHAL and Embase searches identified studies comparing a primary care VEFM with in-person assessment. Studies were quality assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies revised tool. Sensitivity and specificity values were extracted or were calculated and pooled using StatsDirect.ResultsThere were 2,245 titles screened, with 10 studies included. These described three different index tests: electronic frailty index (eFI), claims-based frailty index (cFI) and polypharmacy. Frailty Phenotype was the reference standard in each study. One study of 60 patients examined the eFI, reporting a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.98) and a specificity of 0.78 (0.64, 0.89). Two studies of 7,679 patients examined cFI, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.74) and a specificity of 0.80 (0.53, 0.98). Seven studies of 34,328 patients examined a polypharmacy as a screening tool (defined as more than or equal to five medications) with a pooled sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.72) and a specificity of 0.66 (0.58, 0.73).ConclusionseFI is the best-performing VEFM; however, based on our analysis of an average UK GP practice, it would return a high number of false-positive results. In conclusion, existing electronic frailty tools may not be appropriate for primary care-based population screening.
| S-EPMC10873280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere is lack of evidence for the association between multimorbidity and diagnostic errors. Information on diagnostic errors from patients' perspectives is crucial to improve the diagnostic process. In this study, we aimed to investigate patient-reported diagnostic errors and to examine the relationship between multimorbidity and patient-reported diagnostic errors in the primary care setting.DesignMulticentre cross-sectional study.SettingA primary care practice-based research network in Japan (25 primary care facilities).ParticipantsAdult outpatients filled out a standardised questionnaire.Primary outcome measurePatient-reported diagnostic errors.ResultsData collected from 1474 primary care outpatients were analysed. The number of participants who reported diagnostic errors was 57 (3.9%). Most of the missed diagnoses were common conditions in primary care, such as cancer, dermatitis and hypertension. After adjustment for possible confounders and clustering within facilities, multimorbidity was positively associated with patient-reported diagnostic errors (adjusted OR=1.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.31). The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the primary analysis.ConclusionsThe present study showed a lower proportion of patients reporting experiences of diagnostic errors in primary care than those reported in previous studies in other countries. However, patients with multimorbidity are more likely to report diagnostic errors in primary care; thus, further research is necessary to improve the diagnostic process for patients with multimorbidity.
| S-EPMC7440713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo summarize the literature on prevalence, impact, and contributing factors related to diagnostic error in the PICU.Data sourcesSearch of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2019.Study selectionStudies on diagnostic error and the diagnostic process in pediatric critical care were included. Non-English studies with no translation, case reports/series, studies providing no information on diagnostic error, studies focused on non-PICU populations, and studies focused on a single condition/disease or a single diagnostic test/tool were excluded.Data extractionData on research design, objectives, study sample, and results pertaining to the prevalence, impact, and factors associated with diagnostic error were abstracted from each study.Data synthesisUsing independent tiered review, 396 abstracts were screened, and 17 studies (14 full-text, 3 abstracts) were ultimately included. Fifteen of 17 studies (88%) had an observational research design. Autopsy studies (autopsy rates were 20-47%) showed a 10-23% rate of missed major diagnoses; 5-16% of autopsy-discovered diagnostic errors had a potential adverse impact on survival and would have changed management. Retrospective record reviews reported varying rates of diagnostic error from 8% in a general PICU population to 12% among unexpected critical admissions and 21-25% of patients discussed at PICU morbidity and mortality conferences. Cardiovascular, infectious, congenital, and neurologic conditions were most commonly misdiagnosed. Systems factors (40-67%), cognitive factors (20-3%), and both systems and cognitive factors (40%) were associated with diagnostic error. Limited information was available on the impact of misdiagnosis.ConclusionsKnowledge of diagnostic errors in the PICU is limited. Future work to understand diagnostic errors should involve a balanced focus between studying the diagnosis of individual diseases and uncovering common system- and process-related determinants of diagnostic error.
| S-EPMC8373621 | biostudies-literature