From stable teamwork to dynamic teaming in the ambulatory care diagnostic process.

Dynamic teaming is required whenever people must coordinate with one another in a fluid context, particularly when the fundamental structures of a team, such as membership, priorities, tasks, modes of communication, and location are in near-constant flux. This is certainly the case in the contemporary ambulatory care diagnostic process, where circumstances and conditions require a shifting cast of individuals to coordinate dynamically to ensure patient safety. This article offers an updated perspective on dynamic teaming commonly required during the ambulatory diagnostic process. Drawing upon team science, it clarifies the characteristics of dynamic diagnostic teams, identifies common risk points in the teaming process and the practical implications of these risks, considers the role of providers and patients in averting adverse outcomes, and provides a case example of the challenges of dynamic teaming during the diagnostic process. Based on this, future research needs are offered as well as clinical practice recommendations related to team characteristics and breakdowns, team member knowledge/cognitions, teaming dynamics, and the patient as a team member.

Bringing team science to the ambulatory diagnostic process: how do patients and clinicians develop shared mental models?

The ambulatory diagnostic process is potentially complex, resulting in faulty communication, lost information, and a lack of team coordination. Patients and families have a unique position in the ambulatory diagnostic team, holding privileged information about their clinical conditions and serving as the connecting thread across multiple healthcare encounters. While experts advocate for engaging patients as diagnostic team members, operationalizing patient engagement has been challenging. The team science literature links improved team performance with shared mental models, a concept reflecting the team's commonly held knowledge about the tasks to be done and the expertise of each team member. Despite their proven potential to improve team performance and outcomes in other settings, shared mental models remain underexplored in healthcare. In this manuscript, we review the literature on shared mental models, applying that knowledge to the ambulatory diagnostic process. We consider the role of patients in the diagnostic team and adapt the five-factor model of shared mental models to develop a framework for patient-clinician diagnostic shared mental models. We conclude with research priorities. Development, maintenance, and use of shared mental models of the diagnostic process amongst patients, families, and clinicians may increase patient/family engagement, improve diagnostic team performance, and promote diagnostic safety.

An early Eocene fish assemblage associated with a barite deposit in the lower part of the Crescent Formation, Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, USA.

Abundant shark and rare actinopterygian teeth are reported from a locality within the early Eocene (Ypresian) lower part of the Crescent Formation exposed in the Hamma Hamma River valley on the eastern Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, USA. This part of the Crescent Formation is predominantly submarine volcanic basalt with some sedimentary interbeds deposited in deep water. The teeth are derived from sediments that appear to directly overlay and in places interfinger with the margins of an anomalous lenticular barite deposit; one tooth was found in the barite. Genera represented include deep-water taxa (aff. Chlamydoselachus, Mitsukurina, Notorynchus, Odontaspis) and open marine, epipelagic sharks (Alopias, Brachycarcharias, Jaekelotodus, Macrorhizodus, Otodus, Striatolamia). The only other fossils found were two fragmentary shark vertebrae, numerous shark dermal ossicles, a single teleost tooth (Egertonia) and abundant, minute valves of a discinid brachiopod. This is the first report of macrofossils from the lower part of the Crescent Formation and the only early Eocene shark assemblage described from the North Pacific Basin. The shark assemblage also corroborates paleodepositional interpretations of the lower Crescent Formation as being in part ancient volcanic seamounts during early Eocene time.

Associations Between Organizational Communication and Patients' Experience of Prolonged Emotional Impact Following Medical Errors.

BACKGROUND: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood. METHODS: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year). RESULTS: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]). CONCLUSION: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

What's going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on close collaboration between patients/families and clinicians. Just as patients have unique insights into diagnostic breakdowns, positive patient feedback may also generate broader perspectives on what constitutes a "good" diagnostic process (DxP). METHODS: We evaluated patient/family feedback on "what's going well" as part of an online pre-visit survey designed to engage patients/families in the DxP. Patients/families living with chronic conditions with visits in three urban pediatric subspecialty clinics (site 1) and one rural adult primary care clinic (site 2) were invited to complete the survey between December 2020 and March 2022. We adapted the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to conduct a qualitative analysis on a subset of patient/family responses with ≥20 words. RESULTS: In total, 7,075 surveys were completed before 18,129 visits (39 %) at site 1, and 460 surveys were completed prior to 706 (65 %) visits at site 2. Of all participants, 1,578 volunteered positive feedback, ranging from 1-79 words. Qualitative analysis of 272 comments with ≥20 words described: Relationships (60 %), Clinical Care (36 %), and Environment (4 %). Compared to primary care, subspecialty comments showed the same overall rankings. Within Relationships, patients/families most commonly noted: thorough and competent attention (46 %), clear communication and listening (41 %) and emotional support and human connection (39 %). Within Clinical Care, patients highlighted: timeliness (31 %), effective clinical management (30 %), and coordination of care (25 %). CONCLUSIONS: Patients/families valued relationships with clinicians above all else in the DxP, emphasizing the importance of supporting clinicians to nurture effective relationships and relationship-centered care in the DxP.

Partnering with Patients and Families to Improve Diagnostic Safety through the OurDX Tool: Effects of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Preference.

BACKGROUND: Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note. RESULTS: Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or "other" race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference. CONCLUSION: Participants self-identifying as Black or "other" race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities.

Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns. METHOD: We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions. RESULTS: 7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots. CONCLUSION: Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions to coproduce diagnostic safety through OurDX: a previsit online engagement tool.

OBJECTIVE: Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ("OurDX") that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note. METHODS: Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings. RESULTS: Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories. CONCLUSIONS: OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note.

Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Language barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse. METHOD: We compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses. RESULTS: 596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient's) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

Patient Identification of Diagnostic Safety Blindspots and Participation in "Good Catches" Through Shared Visit Notes.

Policy Points Patients and families can identify clinically relevant errors, including "blindspots"-safety hazards that are difficult for clinicians or organizations to see. Health information transparency, including patient access to electronic visit notes, now federally mandated in the US and the subject of policy debate worldwide, creates a new opportunity to engage patients in diagnostic safety. However, not all patients access notes. Patient identification of blindspots in their notes underscores the need to systematically and equitably engage willing patients in safety, promote patient "good catches," and establish routine systems for patient feedback to help avoid preventable diagnostic errors and delays. CONTEXT: Policy shifts toward health information transparency provide a new opportunity for patients to contribute to diagnostic safety. We investigated whether sharing clinical notes with patients can support identification of "diagnostic safety blindspots"-potentially consequential breakdowns in the diagnostic process that may be difficult for clinical staff to observe. METHOD: We used mixed methods to analyze patient-reported ambulatory documentation errors among 22,889 patients at three US health care centers who read ≥ 1 visit note(s). We identified blindspots by tailoring a previously established taxonomy. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with blindspot identification. FINDINGS: 774 patients reported a total of 962 blindspots in 4 categories: (1) diagnostic misalignments (n = 421, 43.8%), including inaccurate symptoms or histories and failures or delay in diagnosis; (2) errors of omission (38.1%) including missed main concerns or next steps, and failure to listen to patients; (3) problems occurring outside visits (14.3%) such as tests, referrals, or appointment access; and (4) multiple low-level problems (3.7%) cascading into diagnostic breakdowns. Many patients acted on the blindspots they identified, resulting in "good catches" that may prevent potential negative consequences. Older, female, sicker, unemployed or disabled patients, or those who work in health care were more likely to identify a blindspot. Individuals reporting less formal education; those self-identifying as Black, Asian, other, or multiple races; and participants who deferred decision-making to providers were less likely to report a blindspot. CONCLUSION: Patients who read notes have unique insight about potential errors in their medical records that could impact diagnostic reasoning but may not be known to clinicians-underscoring a critical role for patients in diagnostic safety and organizational learning. From a policy standpoint, organizations should encourage patient review of visit notes, build systems to track patient-reported blindspots, and promote equity in note access and blindspot reporting.

Frequency of diagnostic errors in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and etiology of diagnostic errors during the first 7 days of admission for inborn neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 600 consecutive inborn admissions. A physician used the "Safer Dx NICU Instrument" to review the electronic health record for the first 7 days of admission, and categorized cases as "yes," "unclear," or "no" for diagnostic error. A secondary reviewer evaluated all "yes" charts plus a random sample of charts in the other categories. Subsequently, all secondary reviewers reviewed records with discordance between primary and secondary review to arrive at consensus. RESULTS: We identified 37 diagnostic errors (6.2% of study patients) with "substantial agreement" between reviewers (κ = 0.66). The most common diagnostic process breakdown was missed maternal history (51%). CONCLUSION: The frequency of diagnostic error in inborn NICU patients during the first 7 days of admission is 6.2%.