Uncharted territory: measuring costs of diagnostic errors outside the medical record.

CONTEXT: In a past study using unannounced standardised patients (USPs), substantial rates of diagnostic and treatment errors were documented among internists. Because the authors know the correct disposition of these encounters and obtained the physicians' notes, they can identify necessary treatment that was not provided and unnecessary treatment. They can also discern which errors can be identified exclusively from a review of the medical records. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the avoidable direct costs incurred by physicians making errors in our previous study. DESIGN: In the study, USPs visited 111 internal medicine attending physicians. They presented variants of four previously validated cases that jointly manipulate the presence or absence of contextual and biomedical factors that could lead to errors in management if overlooked. For example, in a patient with worsening asthma symptoms, a complicating biomedical factor was the presence of reflux disease and a complicating contextual factor was inability to afford the currently prescribed inhaler. Costs of missed or unnecessary services were computed using Medicare cost-based reimbursement data. SETTING: Fourteen practice locations, including two academic clinics, two community-based primary care networks with multiple sites, a core safety net provider, and three Veteran Administration government facilities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Contribution of errors to costs of care. RESULTS: Overall, errors in care resulted in predicted costs of approximately $174,000 across 399 visits, of which only $8745 was discernible from a review of the medical records alone (without knowledge of the correct diagnoses). The median cost of error per visit with an incorrect care plan differed by case and by presentation variant within case. CONCLUSIONS: Chart reviews alone underestimate costs of care because they typically reflect appropriate treatment decisions conditional on (potentially erroneous) diagnoses. Important information about patient context is often entirely missing from medical records. Experimental methods, including the use of USPs, reveal the substantial costs of these errors.

Contextual errors and failures in individualizing patient care: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: A contextual error occurs when a physician overlooks elements of a patient's environment or behavior that are essential to planning appropriate care. In contrast to biomedical errors, which are not patient-specific, contextual errors represent a failure to individualize care. OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency and circumstances under which physicians probe contextual and biomedical red flags and avoid treatment error by incorporating what they learn from these probes. DESIGN: An incomplete randomized block design in which unannounced, standardized patients visited 111 internal medicine attending physicians between April 2007 and April 2009 and presented variants of 4 scenarios. In all scenarios, patients presented both a contextual and a biomedical red flag. Responses to probing about flags varied in whether they revealed an underlying complicating biomedical or contextual factor (or both) that would lead to errors in management if overlooked. SETTING: 14 practices, including 2 academic clinics, 2 community-based primary care networks with multiple sites, a core safety net provider, and 3 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were the proportion of visits in which physicians probed for contextual and biomedical factors in response to hints or red flags and the proportion of visits that resulted in error-free treatment plans. RESULTS: Physicians probed fewer contextual red flags (51%) than biomedical red flags (63%). Probing for contextual or biomedical information in response to red flags was usually necessary but not sufficient for an error-free plan of care. Physicians provided error-free care in 73% of the uncomplicated encounters, 38% of the biomedically complicated encounters, 22% of the contextually complicated encounters, and 9% of the combined biomedically and contextually complicated encounters. LIMITATIONS: Only 4 case scenarios were used. The study assessed physicians' propensity to make errors when every encounter provided an opportunity to do so and did not measure actual error rates that occur in primary care settings because of inattention to context. CONCLUSION: Inattention to contextual information, such as a patient's transportation needs, economic situation, or caretaker responsibilities, can lead to contextual error, which is not currently measured in assessments of physician performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service