Patient-Clinician Diagnostic Concordance upon Hospital Admission.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to pilot an application-based patient diagnostic questionnaire (PDQ) and assess the concordance of the admission diagnosis reported by the patient and entered by the clinician. METHODS: Eligible patients completed the PDQ assessing patients' understanding of and confidence in the diagnosis 24 hours into hospitalization either independently or with assistance. Demographic data, the hospital principal problem upon admission, and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were retrieved from the electronic health record (EHR). Two physicians independently rated concordance between patient-reported diagnosis and clinician-entered principal problem as full, partial, or no. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographics for concordant (full) and nonconcordant (partial or no) outcome groups. Multivariable logistic regressions of PDQ questions and a priori selected EHR data as independent variables were conducted to predict nonconcordance. RESULTS: A total of 157 (77.7%) questionnaires were completed by 202 participants; 77 (49.0%), 46 (29.3%), and 34 (21.7%) were rated fully concordant, partially concordant, and not concordant, respectively. Cohen's kappa for agreement on preconsensus ratings by independent reviewers was 0.81 (0.74, 0.88). In multivariable analyses, patient-reported lack of confidence and undifferentiated symptoms (ICD-10 "R-code") for the principal problem were significantly associated with nonconcordance (partial or no concordance ratings) after adjusting for other PDQ questions (3.43 [1.30, 10.39], p = 0.02) and in a model using selected variables (4.02 [1.80, 9.55], p < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: About one-half of patient-reported diagnoses were concordant with the clinician-entered diagnosis on admission. An ICD-10 "R-code" entered as the principal problem and patient-reported lack of confidence may predict patient-clinician nonconcordance early during hospitalization via this approach.

Analyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach.

OBJECTIVES: We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error. METHODS: Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process. RESULTS: Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in "Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up" and "Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment" process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.

Analysis of the effects of EHR implementation on timeliness of care in a dermatology clinic: a simulation study.

Objective: Quantify the downstream impact on patient wait times and overall length of stay due to small increases in encounter times caused by the implementation of a new electronic health record (EHR) system. Methods: A discrete-event simulation model was created to examine the effects of increasing the provider-patient encounter time by 1, 2, 5, or 10 min, due to an increase in in-room documentation as part of an EHR implementation. Simulation parameters were constructed from an analysis of 52 000 visits from a scheduling database and direct observation of 93 randomly selected patients to collect all the steps involved in an outpatient dermatology patient care visit. Results: Analysis of the simulation results demonstrates that for a clinic session with an average booking appointment length of 15 min, the addition of 1, 2, 5, and 10 min for in-room physician documentation with an EHR system would result in a 5.2 (22%), 9.8 (41%), 31.8 (136%), and 87.2 (373%) minute increase in average patient wait time, and a 6.2 (12%), 11.7 (23%), 36.7 (73%), and 96.9 (193%) minute increase in length of stay, respectively. To offset the additional 1, 2, 5, or 10 min, patient volume would need to decrease by 10%, 20%, 40%, and >50%, respectively. Conclusions: Small changes to processes, such as the addition of a few minutes of extra documentation time in the exam room, can cause significant delays in the timeliness of patient care. Simulation models can assist in quantifying the downstream effects and help analyze the impact of these operational changes.

A framework for assessing patient crossover and health information exchange value.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of a health information exchange (HIE) between hospitals, we examine the rate of crossover among neurosurgical inpatients treated at Emory University Hospital (EUH) and Grady Memorial Hospital (GMH) in Atlanta, Georgia. To inform decisions regarding investment in HIE, we develop a methodology analyzing crossover behavior for application to larger more general patient populations. DESIGN: Using neurosurgery inpatient visit data from EUH and GMH, unique patients who visited both hospitals were identified through classification by name and age at time of visit. The frequency of flow patterns, including time between visits, and the statistical significance of crossover rates for patients with particular diagnoses were determined. MEASUREMENTS: The time between visits, flow patterns, and proportion of patients exhibiting crossover behavior were calculated for the total population studied as well as subpopulations. RESULTS: 5.25% of patients having multiple visits over the study period visited the neurosurgical departments at both hospitals. 77% of crossover patients visited the level 1 trauma center (GMH) before visiting EUH. LIMITATIONS: The true patient crossover may be under-estimated because the study population only consists of neurosurgical inpatients at EUH and GMH. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that detailed analysis of crossover behavior provides a deeper understanding of the potential value of HIE.