Partnership as a Pathway to Diagnostic Excellence: The Challenges and Successes of Implementing the Safer Dx Learning Lab.

BACKGROUND: Learning health system (LHS) approaches could potentially help health care organizations (HCOs) identify and address diagnostic errors. However, few such programs exist, and their implementation is poorly understood. METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative evaluation of the Safer Dx Learning Lab, a partnership between a health system and a research team, to identify and learn from diagnostic errors and improve diagnostic safety at an organizational level. The research team conducted virtual interviews to solicit participant feedback regarding experiences with the lab, focusing specifically on implementation and sustainment issues. RESULTS: Interviews of 25 members associated with the lab identified the following successes: learning and professional growth, improved workflow related to streamlining the process of reporting error cases, and a psychologically safe culture for identifying and reporting diagnostic errors. However, multiple barriers also emerged: competing priorities between clinical responsibilities and research, time-management issues related to a lack of protected time, and inadequate guidance to disseminate findings. Lessons learned included understanding the importance of obtaining buy-in from leadership and interested stakeholders, creating a psychologically safe environment for reporting cases, and the need for more protected time for clinicians to review and learn from cases. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that a learning health systems approach using partnerships between researchers and a health system affected organizational culture by prioritizing learning from diagnostic errors and encouraging clinicians to be more open to reporting. The study findings can help organizations overcome barriers to engage clinicians and inform future implementation and sustainment of similar initiatives.

Development and Implementation of a Digital Quality Measure of Emergency Cancer Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Missed and delayed cancer diagnoses are common, harmful, and often preventable. Automated measures of quality of cancer diagnosis are lacking but could identify gaps and guide interventions. We developed and implemented a digital quality measure (dQM) of cancer emergency presentation (EP) using electronic health record databases of two health systems and characterized the measure's association with missed opportunities for diagnosis (MODs) and mortality. METHODS: On the basis of literature and expert input, we defined EP as a new cancer diagnosis within 30 days after emergency department or inpatient visit. We identified EPs for lung cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Geisinger from 2016 to 2020. We validated measure accuracy and identified preceding MODs through standardized chart review of 100 records per cancer per health system. Using VA's longitudinal encounter and mortality data, we applied logistic regression to assess EP's association with 1-year mortality, adjusting for cancer stage and demographics. RESULTS: Among 38,565 and 2,914 patients with lung cancer and 14,674 and 1,649 patients with CRCs at VA and Geisinger, respectively, our dQM identified EPs in 20.9% and 9.4% of lung cancers, and 22.4% and 7.5% of CRCs. Chart reviews revealed high positive predictive values for EPs across sites and cancer types (72%-90%), and a substantial percent represented MODs (48.8%-84.9%). EP was associated with significantly higher odds of 1-year mortality for lung cancer and CRC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78 and 1.83, respectively, 95% CI, 1.63 to 1.86 and 1.61 to 2.07). CONCLUSION: A dQM for cancer EP was strongly associated with both mortality and MODs. The findings suggest a promising automated approach to measuring quality of cancer diagnosis in US health systems.

Developing electronic clinical quality measures to assess the cancer diagnostic process.

OBJECTIVE: Measures of diagnostic performance in cancer are underdeveloped. Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) to assess quality of cancer diagnosis could help quantify and improve diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed 2 eCQMs to assess diagnostic evaluation of red-flag clinical findings for colorectal (CRC; based on abnormal stool-based cancer screening tests or labs suggestive of iron deficiency anemia) and lung (abnormal chest imaging) cancer. The 2 eCQMs quantified rates of red-flag follow-up in CRC and lung cancer using electronic health record data repositories at 2 large healthcare systems. Each measure used clinical data to identify abnormal results, evidence of appropriate follow-up, and exclusions that signified follow-up was unnecessary. Clinicians reviewed 100 positive and 20 negative randomly selected records for each eCQM at each site to validate accuracy and categorized missed opportunities related to system, provider, or patient factors. RESULTS: We implemented the CRC eCQM at both sites, while the lung cancer eCQM was only implemented at the VA due to lack of structured data indicating level of cancer suspicion on most chest imaging results at Geisinger. For the CRC eCQM, the rate of appropriate follow-up was 36.0% (26 746/74 314 patients) in the VA after removing clinical exclusions and 41.1% at Geisinger (1009/2461 patients; P < .001). Similarly, the rate of appropriate evaluation for lung cancer in the VA was 61.5% (25 166/40 924 patients). Reviewers most frequently attributed missed opportunities at both sites to provider factors (84 of 157). CONCLUSIONS: We implemented 2 eCQMs to evaluate the diagnostic process in cancer at 2 large health systems. Health care organizations can use these eCQMs to monitor diagnostic performance related to cancer.

Translating electronic health record-based patient safety algorithms from research to clinical practice at multiple sites.

INTRODUCTION: Researchers are increasingly developing algorithms that impact patient care, but algorithms must also be implemented in practice to improve quality and safety. OBJECTIVE: We worked with clinical operations personnel at two US health systems to implement algorithms to proactively identify patients without timely follow-up of abnormal test results that warrant diagnostic evaluation for colorectal or lung cancer. We summarise the steps involved and lessons learned. METHODS: Twelve sites were involved across two health systems. Implementation involved extensive software documentation, frequent communication with sites and local validation of results. Additionally, we used automated edits of existing code to adapt it to sites' local contexts. RESULTS: All sites successfully implemented the algorithms. Automated edits saved sites significant work in direct code modification. Documentation and communication of changes further aided sites in implementation. CONCLUSION: Patient safety algorithms developed in research projects were implemented at multiple sites to monitor for missed diagnostic opportunities. Automated algorithm translation procedures can produce more consistent results across sites.

Inviting patients to identify diagnostic concerns through structured evaluation of their online visit notes.

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review. OBJECTIVE: To test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes. METHODS: In a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables. RESULTS: Of 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01). CONCLUSION: Patients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.

Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient complaints are associated with adverse events and malpractice claims but underused in patient safety improvement. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the use of patient complaint data to identify safety concerns related to diagnosis as an initial step to using this information to facilitate learning and improvement. METHODS: We reviewed patient complaints submitted to Geisinger, a large healthcare organisation in the USA, from August to December 2017 (cohort 1) and January to June 2018 (cohort 2). We selected complaints more likely to be associated with diagnostic concerns in Geisinger's existing complaint taxonomy. Investigators reviewed all complaint summaries and identified cases as 'concerning' for diagnostic error using the National Academy of Medicine's definition of diagnostic error. For all 'concerning' cases, a clinician-reviewer evaluated the associated investigation report and the patient's medical record to identify any missed opportunities in making a correct or timely diagnosis. In cohort 2, we selected a 10% sample of 'concerning' cases to test this smaller pragmatic sample as a proof of concept for future organisational monitoring. RESULTS: In cohort 1, we reviewed 1865 complaint summaries and identified 177 (9.5%) concerning reports. Review and analysis identified 39 diagnostic errors. Most were categorised as 'Clinical Care issues' (27, 69.2%), defined as concerns/questions related to the care that is provided by clinicians in any setting. In cohort 2, we reviewed 2423 patient complaint summaries and identified 310 (12.8%) concerning reports. The 10% sample (n=31 cases) contained five diagnostic errors. Qualitative analysis of cohort 1 cases identified concerns about return visits for persistent and/or worsening symptoms, interpersonal issues and diagnostic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of patient complaint data and corresponding medical record review identifies patterns of failures in the diagnostic process reported by patients and families. Health systems could systematically analyse available data on patient complaints to monitor diagnostic safety concerns and identify opportunities for learning and improvement.

From buzzword to business strategy: the case for information and decision support systems in e-healthcare.

Although electronic healthcare can boast of a remarkable origin in modern-day e-commerce in the form of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), its mission-critical nature in information-based strategising is yet to be realised. Restricting the scope of e-healthcare management to product advertisements and website management reflects an unfortunate trend of underutilisation of the scope of electronic decision support systems in pricing and other business strategies. This paper aims to illustrate how this trend can be corrected by transforming e-healthcare into a full-fledged business strategy for strategic positioning and corporate profitability. This argument is illustrated with the aid of a business example related to transfer pricing.