Clinician Ordering and Management Patterns of Urine Toxicology Results at a Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Opioid therapy is a cornerstone for treatment of cancer-related pain, but standardized management practices for patients with cancer and aberrant urine drug test (UDT) results are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of UDT ordering (both screening and definitive testing) in the oncology setting and to examine clinician management practices for patients with cancer on opioid therapy with aberrant definitive UDT results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with cancer on opioid therapy at an academic cancer center in the United States. Outcomes included UDT ordering patterns and clinician management practices in response to aberrant definitive UDT results. RESULTS: Our study revealed an overall UDT ordering rate of 3.7% among 10,371 patients with cancer on opioid therapy. Among 143 patients for whom definitive UDTs were ordered, oncologists only ordered 14 (9.8%) UDTs, while palliative care ordered the majority (n = 129; 90.2%). Fifty-five (38.5%) patients had aberrant results, and the most common aberrancy was presence of illicit drugs 22 [15.4%]. Clinicians rarely made medication changes (20 [36.4%]) when UDT results were aberrant, and in the setting of possible fentanyl use (n = 8), only 3 (37.5%) patients were started/switched to methadone, and none were started/switched to buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: Overall UDT ordering was infrequent for patients with cancer on opioid therapy, especially by oncologists, and clinicians rarely made prescribing changes when definitive UDT results were aberrant. More definitive guidance related to UDT ordering and opioid management are needed for patients with cancer and aberrant UDT results.

Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees.

BACKGROUND: A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure. RESULTS: Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups. CONCLUSION: Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in Telehealth vs In-Person Visits.

Importance: Use of telehealth has increased substantially in recent years. However, little is known about whether the likelihood of completing recommended tests and specialty referrals-termed diagnostic loop closure-is associated with visit modality. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for tests and referrals ordered at telehealth visits vs in-person visits and identify associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study, all patient visits from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, at 1 large urban hospital-based primary care practice and 1 affiliated community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, were evaluated. Main Measures: Prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for (1) colonoscopy referrals (screening and diagnostic), (2) dermatology referrals for suspicious skin lesions, and (3) cardiac stress tests. Results: The study included test and referral orders for 4133 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.7] years; 2163 [52.3%] women; 203 [4.9%] Asian, 1146 [27.7%] Black, 2362 [57.1%] White, and 422 [10.2%] unknown or other race). A total of 1151 of the 4133 orders (27.8%) were placed during a telehealth visit. Of the telehealth orders, 42.6% were completed within the designated time frame vs 58.4% of those ordered during in-person visits and 57.4% of those ordered without a visit. In an adjusted analysis, patients with telehealth visits were less likely to close the loop for all test types compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that rates of loop closure were low for all test types across all visit modalities but worse for telehealth. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a patient safety challenge in primary care that may be of particular concern during telehealth encounters.

Completion Rates and Timeliness of Diagnostic Colonoscopies for Rectal Bleeding in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Rectal bleeding is the most common presenting symptom of colorectal cancer, and guidelines recommend timely follow-up, usually with colonoscopy to ensure timely diagnoses of colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Identify loop closure rates and vulnerable process points for patients with rectal bleeding. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, using medical record review of patients aged ≥ 40 with index diagnosis of rectal bleeding at 2 primary practices-an urban academic practice and affiliated community health center, between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Patients were classified as having completed recommended follow-up workup ("closed loop") vs. not ("open loop"). Open loop patient cases were categorized into six types of process failures. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 837 patients had coded diagnoses of rectal bleeding within study window. Sixty-seven were excluded based on prior colectomy, clinical presentation more consistent with upper GI bleed, no rectal bleeding documented on chart review, or expired during the follow-up period, leaving 770 patients included. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were percentages of patient cases classified as "open loops" and distribution of these cases into six categories of process failure that were identified. KEY RESULTS: 22.3% of patients (N = 172) failed to undergo timely recommended workup for rectal bleeding. Largest failure categories were patients for whom no procedure was ordered (N = 62, 36%), followed by patients with procedures ordered but never scheduled (N = 44, 26%) or scheduled but subsequently cancelled or not kept (N = 31, 18%). While open loops increased after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this difference was not significant within our study period. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients presenting to primary care with rectal bleeding fail to undergo recommended workup. The majority either have no procedure ordered, or procedure ordered but never scheduled or cancelled and not kept, suggesting these are important failure modes to target in future interventions. Ensuring reliable ordering and processes for timely scheduling and completion of procedures represent critical areas for improving the diagnostic process for patients with rectal bleeding in primary care.

Urgent referrals from primary care to dermatology for lesions suspicious for skin cancer: patterns, outcomes, and need for systems improvement.

Ideally, urgent dermatology referrals for evaluation of a lesion concerning for skin cancer should be triaged and processed with appropriate urgency by primary care and dermatology, respectively. We performed a retrospective single-institution study by conducting chart reviews of all dermatology referrals designated by primary care as urgent for evaluation of a lesion concerning for skin cancer. We identified 320 referrals placed between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Dermatology encounters for these patients occurred on or before 30 days for 50.6% of referrals and on or after 31 days for 38.4% of referrals, with 10.9% never completed. The percentage of all races excluding whites, non-Hispanic in the delayed appointment group (≥ 31 days) was 15.1% higher (95% CI 5.3-24.9) than in the timely appointment group (≤ 30 days). Similarly, the percentage of non-English languages in the delayed group was 7.1% higher (95% CI 0.5-13.7) than in the timely group. Overall, 15.8% of these referrals yielded diagnoses of malignancy, while 76.8% and 7.4% resulted in benign and pre-malignant diagnoses, respectively. The primary care team documented referral status (i.e., completed, incomplete, or pending) during their subsequent visits with the patients in only 37.5% of these referrals. Our findings demonstrate the need to improve the reliability of urgent referrals to ensure they occur in a timely manner with confirmation of "referral loop" closure at the referring clinician's end.

Characteristics of Disease-Specific and Generic Diagnostic Pitfalls: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Progress in understanding and preventing diagnostic errors has been modest. New approaches are needed to help clinicians anticipate and prevent such errors. Delineating recurring diagnostic pitfalls holds potential for conceptual and practical ways for improvement. Objectives: To develop the construct and collect examples of "diagnostic pitfalls," defined as clinical situations and scenarios vulnerable to errors that may lead to missed, delayed, or wrong diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used data from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016, from retrospective analysis of diagnosis-related patient safety incident reports, closed malpractice claims, and ambulatory morbidity and mortality conferences, as well as specialty focus groups. Data analyses were conducted between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: From each data source, potential diagnostic error cases were identified, and the following information was extracted: erroneous and correct diagnoses, presenting signs and symptoms, and areas of breakdowns in the diagnostic process (using Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research and Reliable Diagnosis Challenges taxonomies). From this compilation, examples were collected of disease-specific pitfalls; this list was used to conduct a qualitative analysis of emerging themes to derive a generic taxonomy of diagnostic pitfalls. Results: A total of 836 relevant cases were identified among 4325 patient safety incident reports, 403 closed malpractice claims, 24 ambulatory morbidity and mortality conferences, and 355 focus groups responses. From these, 661 disease-specific diagnostic pitfalls were identified. A qualitative review of these disease-specific pitfalls identified 21 generic diagnostic pitfalls categories, which included mistaking one disease for another disease (eg, aortic dissection is misdiagnosed as acute myocardial infarction), failure to appreciate test result limitations, and atypical disease presentations. Conclusions and Relevance: Recurring types of pitfalls were identified and collected from diagnostic error cases. Clinicians could benefit from knowledge of both disease-specific and generic cross-cutting pitfalls. Study findings can potentially inform educational and quality improvement efforts to anticipate and prevent future errors.

Provider Misinterpretation, Documentation, and Follow-Up of Definitive Urine Drug Testing Results.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results. DESIGN: This is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills. KEY RESULTS: Aberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p < 0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled. CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.

Missed diagnosis of cancer in primary care: Insights from malpractice claims data.

BACKGROUND: In the ambulatory setting, missed cancer diagnoses are leading contributors to patient harm and malpractice risk; however, there are limited data on the malpractice case characteristics for these cases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine key features and factors identified in missed cancer diagnosis malpractice claims filed related to primary care and evaluate predictors of clinical and claim outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 2155 diagnostic error closed malpractice claims in outpatient general medicine. We created multivariate models to determine factors that predicted case outcomes. RESULTS: Missed cancer diagnoses represented 980 (46%) cases of primary care diagnostic errors, most commonly from lung, colorectal, prostate, or breast cancer. The majority (76%) involved errors in clinical judgment, such as a failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test (51%) or failure or delay in obtaining a consult or referral (37%). These factors were independently associated with higher-severity patient harm. The majority of these errors were of high severity (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice claims involving missed diagnoses of cancer in primary care most often involve routine screening examinations or delays in testing or referral. Our findings suggest that more reliable closed-loop systems for diagnostic testing and referrals are crucial for preventing diagnostic errors in the ambulatory setting.

How often do prescribers include indications in drug orders? Analysis of 4 million outpatient prescriptions.

PURPOSE: To examine the extent to which outpatient clinicians currently document drug indications in prescription instructions. METHODS: Free-text sigs were extracted from all outpatient prescriptions generated by the computerized prescriber order entry system of a major academic institution during a 5-year period. Natural language processing was used to identify drug indications. The data set was analyzed to determine the rates at which prescribers included indications. It was stratified by provider specialty, drug class, and specific medications, to determine how often these indications were in prescriptions for as-needed (PRN) versus non-PRN medications. RESULTS: During the study period, 4,356,086 prescriptions were ordered. Indications were included in 322,961 orders (7.41%). From these orders, 249,262 indications (77.18%) were written for PRN orders. Although internal medicine prescribers generated the highest number of medication orders, they included indications in only 6.26% of their prescriptions, whereas orthopedic surgery providers had the highest rate of documenting indications (33.41%). Pain was the most common indication, accounting for 30.35% of all documented indications. The drug class with the highest number of sigs-containing indications was narcotic analgesics. Non-PRN chronic medication prescriptions rarely included the indication. CONCLUSION: Prescribers rarely included drug indications in electronic free-text prescription instructions, and, when they did, it was mostly for PRN uses such as pain.

Effect of Restriction of the Number of Concurrently Open Records in an Electronic Health Record on Wrong-Patient Order Errors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recommendations in the United States suggest limiting the number of patient records displayed in an electronic health record (EHR) to 1 at a time, although little evidence supports this recommendation. Objective: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders in an EHR configuration limiting clinicians to 1 record vs allowing up to 4 records opened concurrently. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 3356 clinicians at a large health system in New York and was conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 in emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings. Interventions: Clinicians were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an EHR configuration limiting to 1 patient record open at a time (restricted; n = 1669) or allowing up to 4 records open concurrently (unrestricted; n = 1687). Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit of analysis was the order session, a series of orders placed by a clinician for a single patient. The primary outcome was order sessions that included 1 or more wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure (an electronic query that identifies orders placed for a patient, retracted, and then reordered shortly thereafter by the same clinician for a different patient). Results: Among the 3356 clinicians who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [12.5] years; mean [SD] experience at study site, 6.5 [6.0] years; 1894 females [56.4%]), all provided order data and were included in the analysis. The study included 12 140 298 orders, in 4 486 631 order sessions, placed for 543 490 patients. There was no significant difference in wrong-patient order sessions per 100 000 in the restricted vs unrestricted group, respectively, overall (90.7 vs 88.0; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]; P = .60) or in any setting (ED: 157.8 vs 161.3, OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83-1.20], P = .96; inpatient: 185.6 vs 185.1, OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .86; or outpatient: 7.9 vs 8.2, OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28], P = .71). The effect did not differ among settings (P for interaction = .99). In the unrestricted group overall, 66.2% of the order sessions were completed with 1 record open, including 34.5% of ED, 53.7% of inpatient, and 83.4% of outpatient order sessions. Conclusions and Relevance: A strategy that limited clinicians to 1 EHR patient record open compared with a strategy that allowed up to 4 records open concurrently did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient order errors. However, clinicians in the unrestricted group placed most orders with a single record open, limiting the power of the study to determine whether reducing the number of records open when placing orders reduces the risk of wrong-patient order errors. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02876588.

Screening for Adverse Drug Events: a Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Medication adverse events are important and common yet are often not identified by clinicians. We evaluated an automated telephone surveillance system coupled with transfer to a live pharmacist to screen potentially drug-related symptoms after newly starting medications for four common primary care conditions: hypertension, diabetes, depression, and insomnia. METHODS: Cluster randomized trial with automated calls to eligible patients at 1 and 4 months after starting target drugs from intervention primary care clinics compared to propensity-matched patients from control clinics. Primary and secondary outcomes were physician documentation of any adverse effects associated with newly prescribed target medication, and whether the medication was discontinued and, if yes, whether the reason for stopping was an adverse effect. RESULTS: Of 4876 eligible intervention clinic patients who were contacted using automated calls, 776 (15.1%) responded and participated in the automated call. Based on positive symptom responses or request to speak to a pharmacist, 320 patients were transferred to the pharmacist and discussed 1021 potentially drug-related symptoms. Of these, 188 (18.5%) were assessed as probably and 479 (47.1%) as possibly related to the medication. Compared to a propensity-matched cohort of control clinic patients, intervention patients were significantly more likely to have adverse effects documented in the medical record by a physician (277 vs. 164 adverse effects, p < 0.0001, and 177 vs. 122 patients discontinued with documented adverse effects, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Systematic automated telephone outreach monitoring coupled with real-time phone referral to a pharmacist identified a substantial number of previously unidentified potentially drug-related symptoms, many of which were validated as probably or possibly related to the drug by the pharmacist or their physicians. Multiple challenges were encountered using the interactive voice response (IVR) automated calling system, suggesting that other approaches may need to be considered and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02087293.

Incorporating medication indications into the prescribing process.

PURPOSE: The incorporation of medication indications into the prescribing process to improve patient safety is discussed. SUMMARY: Currently, most prescriptions lack a key piece of information needed for safe medication use: the patient-specific drug indication. Integrating indications could pave the way for safer prescribing in multiple ways, including avoiding look-alike/sound-alike errors, facilitating selection of drugs of choice, aiding in communication among the healthcare team, bolstering patient understanding and adherence, and organizing medication lists to facilitate medication reconciliation. Although strongly supported by pharmacists, multiple prior attempts to encourage prescribers to include the indication on prescriptions have not been successful. We convened 6 expert panels to consult high-level stakeholders on system design considerations and requirements necessary for building and implementing an indications-based computerized prescriber order-entry (CPOE) system. We summarize our findings from the 6 expert stakeholder panels, including rationale, literature findings, potential benefits, and challenges of incorporating indications into the prescribing process. Based on this stakeholder input, design requirements for a new CPOE interface and workflow have been identified. CONCLUSION: The emergence of universal electronic prescribing and content knowledge vendors has laid the groundwork for incorporating indications into the CPOE prescribing process. As medication prescribing moves in the direction of inclusion of the indication, it is imperative to design CPOE systems to efficiently and effectively incorporate indications into prescriber workflows and optimize ways this can best be accomplished.

Primary Care Collaboration to Improve Diagnosis and Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death, reducible by screening and early diagnosis, yet many patients fail to receive recommended screening. As part of an academic improvement collaborative, 25 primary care practices worked to improve CRC screening and diagnosis. METHODS: The project featured triannual learning sessions, monthly conference calls, practice coach support, and monthly reporting. The project phases included literature review and interviews with national leaders/organizations, development of driver diagrams to identify key factors and change ideas, project launch and practice team planning, and a practice improvement phase. RESULTS: The project activities included (1) inventory of barriers and best practices, (2) driver diagram to drive improvements, (3) list of changes to try, (4) compilation of lessons learned, and (5) five key changes to optimize screening and follow-up. Practices leveraged prior transformation efforts to track patients for screening and follow-up during and between office visits. By mapping processes, testing changes, and collecting data, sites targeted opportunities to improve quality, safety, efficiency, and patient and care team experience. Successful change interventions centered around partnering with gastroenterology, engaging leadership, leveraging registries and health information technology, promoting alternative screening options, and partnering with and supporting patients. Several practices achieved improvement in screening rates, while others demonstrated no change from baseline during the 10-month testing and implementation phase (July 2014-April 2015). CONCLUSION: The collaborative effectively engaged teams in a broad set of process improvements with key lessons learned related to barriers, information technology challenges, outreach challenges/strategies, and importance of stakeholder and patient engagement.

Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains.

BACKGROUND: Drug name confusion is a common type of medication error and a persistent threat to patient safety. In the USA, roughly one per thousand prescriptions results in the wrong drug being filled, and most of these errors involve drug names that look or sound alike. Prior to approval, drug names undergo a variety of tests to assess their potential for confusability, but none of these preapproval tests has been shown to predict real-world error rates. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a study to assess the association between error rates in laboratory-based tests of drug name memory and perception and real-world drug name confusion error rates. METHODS: Eighty participants, comprising doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians and lay people, completed a battery of laboratory tests assessing visual perception, auditory perception and short-term memory of look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs (eg, hydroxyzine/hydralazine). RESULTS: Laboratory test error rates (and other metrics) significantly predicted real-world error rates obtained from a large, outpatient pharmacy chain, with the best-fitting model accounting for 37% of the variance in real-world error rates. Cross-validation analyses confirmed these results, showing that the laboratory tests also predicted errors from a second pharmacy chain, with 45% of the variance being explained by the laboratory test data. CONCLUSIONS: Across two distinct pharmacy chains, there is a strong and significant association between drug name confusion error rates observed in the real world and those observed in laboratory-based tests of memory and perception. Regulators and drug companies seeking a validated preapproval method for identifying confusing drug names ought to consider using these simple tests. By using a standard battery of memory and perception tests, it should be possible to reduce the number of confusing look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs that reach the market, which will help protect patients from potentially harmful medication errors.

Characterizing the pain score trajectories of hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Pain care for hospitalized patients is often suboptimal. Representing pain scores as a graphical trajectory may provide insights into the understanding and treatment of pain. We describe a 1-year, retrospective, observational study to characterize pain trajectories of hospitalized adults during the first 48 hours after admission at an urban academic medical center. Using a subgroup of patients who presented with significant pain (pain score >4; n = 7762 encounters), we characterized pain trajectories and measured area under the curve, slope of the trajectory for the first 2 hours after admission, and pain intensity at plateau. We used mixed-effects regression to assess the association between pain score and sociodemographics (age, race, and gender), pain medication orders (opioids, nonopioids, and no medications), and medical service (obstetrics, psychiatry, surgery, sickle cell, intensive care unit, and medicine). K-means clustering was used to identify patient subgroups with similar trajectories. Trajectories showed differences based on race, gender, service, and initial pain score. Patients presumed to have dissimilar pain experiences (eg, sickle vs obstetrical) had markedly different pain trajectories. Patients with higher initial pain had a more rapid reduction during their first 2 hours of treatment. Pain reduction achieved in the 48 hours after admission was approximately 50% of the initial pain, regardless of the initial pain. Most patients' pain failed to fully resolve, plateauing at a pain score of 4 or greater. Visualizing pain scores as graphical trajectories illustrates the dynamic variability in pain, highlighting pain responses over a period of observation, and may yield new insights for quality improvement and research.

Teams and teamwork during a cancer diagnosis: interdependency within and between teams.

This article discusses the care process among three groups (primary care, radiology, and surgery) aiding a 57-year-old woman during her screening mammography and diagnosis of breast cancer. This is the first in a series of articles exploring principles and topics relevant to teams guiding clinicians involved in cancer care. The challenges demonstrated in this case illustrate how clinicians work within and between groups to deliver this first phase of cancer care. The case helps demonstrate the differences between groups and teams. Focusing on the patient and the overall process of care coordination can help move groups toward becoming teams who deliver better care by identifying and managing goals, roles, and interdependent care tasks. Care providers and researchers can use the case to consider their own work and essential aspects of teamwork needed to improve care, patient outcomes, and the evidence that supports each.