Diagnostic journey: Concepts & Data Welcome to Massachusetts - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

diagnostic journey concepts amp data
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Diagnostic journey: Concepts & Data Welcome to Massachusetts - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Diagnostic journey: Concepts & Data Welcome to Massachusetts 2 recent studies showing prominence Dx Errors What is a Diagnosis; Diagnosis Error 3 Models to help conceptualize Dx Error Illustrative Studies DEER,


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Diagnostic journey: Concepts & Data

  • Welcome to Massachusetts

– 2 recent studies showing prominence Dx Errors

  • What is a “Diagnosis”; Diagnosis Error

– 3 Models to help conceptualize Dx Error

  • Illustrative Studies

– DEER, PROMISES, Harvard Ctr 1o Care

  • Health IT – Unrealized potential

– Solution vs. part of problem

  • Diagnostic Pitfalls

– Construct to bridge cognitive vs. system silos?

slide-2
SLIDE 2
slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Schiff et al JAMA Intern Med 2013

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Diagnosis

Preliminary diagnosis Working diagnosis Differential diagnosis Syndromic diagnosis Etiologic diagnosis Possible diagnosis Problem on Problem List Tissue diagnosis Computer diagnosis (EKG read) Deferred diagnosis Multiple/dual diagnoses Preclinical diagnosis Diagnosis risk factor Incidental finding Diagnosis complication Self diagnosis Billing diagnosis Telephone diagnosis Postmortem diagnosis Prenatal diagnosis Rare diagnosis

Difficult/ challenging diagnosis

Undiagnosed disease Contested diagnoses Undisclosed diagnosis Novel diagnosis Futile diagnosis Erroneous diagnosis

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • Preliminary diagnosis
  • Working diagnosis
  • Differential diagnosis
  • Syndromic diagnosis
  • Etiologic diagnosis
  • Possible diagnosis
  • Problem on Problem List
  • Tissue diagnosis
  • Computer diagnosis (EKG

read)

  • Deferred diagnosis
  • Multiple/dual diagnoses
  • Preclinical diagnosis
  • Diagnosis/disease risk factor
  • Incidental finding
  • Diagnosis complication
  • Billing diagnosis
  • Telephone diagnosis
  • Postmortem diagnosis
  • Prenatal diagnosis
  • Rare diagnosis
  • Difficult/challenging diagnosis
  • Undiagnosed disease
  • Contested diagnoses
  • Novel diagnosis
  • Futile diagnosis
  • Erroneous diagnosis

What is a “Diagnosis” ?

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Leishmaniasis Dx Delays

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Adverse Outcomes

Diagnostic Process Failures

Delayed, Missed, Misdiagnosis

What is a Diagnosis Error?

Modified from Schiff Advances in Patient Safety AHRQ 2005, Schiff & Leape Acad Med 2012
slide-10
SLIDE 10 Where did it go wrong? What went wrong? Access/ Presentation A Failure/delay in presentation B Failure/denied care access History A Failure/delay in eliciting critical piece of history data B Inaccurate/misinterpreted critical piece of history data C Failure in weighing critical piece of history data D Failure/delay to follow-up critical piece of history data Physical Exam A Failure/delay in eliciting critical physical exam finding B Inaccurate/misinterpreted critical physical exam finding C Failure in weighing critical physical exam finding D Failure/delay to follow-up critical physical exam finding Tests (Lab/ Radiology) Ordering A Failure/delay in ordering needed test(s) B Failure/delay in performing ordered test(s) C Error in test sequencing D Ordering of wrong test(s) E Tests ordered wrong way Performance F Sample mix-up/mislabeled (e.g. wrong patient/test) G Technical errors/poor processing of specimen/test H Erroneous lab/radiology reading of test I Failed/delayed reporting of result to clinician Clinician Processing J Failed/delayed follow-up of (abnormal) test result K Error in clinician interpretation of test Assessment Hypothesis Generation A Failure/delay in considering the diagnosis Suboptimal Weighing/Prioritizing B Too little consideration/weight given to the diagnosis C Too much weight on competing/coexisting diagnosis Recognizing Urgency/Complications D Failure/delay to recognize/weigh urgency E Failure/delay to recognize/weigh complications Referral/ Consultation A Failure/delay in ordering referral B Failure/delay obtaining/scheduling ordered referral C Error in diagnostic consultation performance D Failed/delayed communication/follow-up of consultation Follow-up A Failure to refer patient to close/safe setting/monitoring B Failure/delay in timely follow-up/rechecking of patient

Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) Taxonomy

slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12

What went wrong: DEER Taxonomy Localization

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

ONLY ~50-50 chance this order results in colonoscopy actually being performed !

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

55/338 (16%)  not improved

  • f whom only 21 (38%)

had contacted any clinician

slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

El-Kareh Schiff BMJ QS 2013

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

What is a Diagnostic Pitfall?

Clinical situations where patterns of, or vulnerabilities to errors leading to missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Diagnostic pitfalls identified from 5 data sources:

  • 1. Narrative literature review using search terms:

diagnosis, error, pitfall, and/or primary care

  • 2. Diagnosis-related patient safety event reports

2004 – 2014

  • 3. Ambulatory morbidity and mortality (M&M) reports

2005 – 2013

  • 4. Diagnosis-related closed malpractice claims

2010 – 2014

  • 5. Specialist focus groups

Rheumatology, Neurology, Oral Medicine, Pulmonology, Gastroenterology, Dermatology

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy: “It identifies what went wrong, and situates where in the diagnostic process the failure occurred”

1. Access/Presentation 2. History 3. Physical Exam 4. Labs 5. Assessment 6. Referral/Consultation 7. Follow-up

Methods: DEER Taxonomy

Schiff et al. Arch Intern Med 2009

slide-22
SLIDE 22 Where did it go wrong? What went wrong? Access/ Presentation A Failure/delay in presentation B Failure/denied care access History A Failure/delay in eliciting critical piece of history data B Inaccurate/misinterpreted critical piece of history data C Failure in weighing critical piece of history data D Failure/delay to follow-up critical piece of history data Physical Exam A Failure/delay in eliciting critical physical exam finding B Inaccurate/misinterpreted critical physical exam finding C Failure in weighing critical physical exam finding D Failure/delay to follow-up critical physical exam finding Tests (Lab/ Radiology) Ordering A Failure/delay in ordering needed test(s) B Failure/delay in performing ordered test(s) C Error in test sequencing D Ordering of wrong test(s) E Tests ordered wrong way Performance F Sample mix-up/mislabeled (e.g. wrong patient/test) G Technical errors/poor processing of specimen/test H Erroneous lab/radiology reading of test I Failed/delayed reporting of result to clinician Clinician Processing J Failed/delayed follow-up of (abnormal) test result K Error in clinician interpretation of test Assessment Hypothesis Generation A Failure/delay in considering the diagnosis Suboptimal Weighing/Prioritizing B Too little consideration/weight given to the diagnosis C Too much weight on competing/coexisting diagnosis Recognizing Urgency/Complications D Failure/delay to recognize/weigh urgency E Failure/delay to recognize/weigh complications Referral/ Consultation A Failure/delay in ordering referral B Failure/delay obtaining/scheduling ordered referral C Error in diagnostic consultation performance D Failed/delayed communication/follow-up of consultation Follow-up A Failure to refer patient to close/safe setting/monitoring B Failure/delay in timely follow-up/rechecking of patient

Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) Taxonomy

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Reliable Diagnosis Challenges Taxonomy: Identifies the general challenges complicating the diagnostic process, pinpoints why a mistake occurred.

  • 1. Challenging Disease Presentation
  • 2. Patient Factors
  • 3. Testing Challenges
  • 4. Stressors
  • 5. Broader Challenges

Methods: RDC Taxonomy

  • Schiff. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012
slide-24
SLIDE 24 Challenge Category Specific Challenge Challenging Disease Presentation A Rare diagnosis B Atypical presentation C Nonspecific signs and symptoms D Unfamiliar/outside specialty E Masking/mimicking diagnosis F Red herring misleading finding G Rapidly progressive H Slowly evolving I Deceptively benign course Patient Factors A Language/communication B Signal:noise (noisy pts) C Patient fails to share D Patient fails to follow-up Testing Challenges A Test availability, access, cost B Logistical issues C False positive/negative results D Performance/interpretation E Equivocal results/reports F Test follow-up issues Stressors A Time constraints B Discontinuities C Fragmentation of care D Memory reliance/challenges Broader Challenges A Recognition of acuity/severity B Diagnosis of complication C Recognizing failure to respond to treatment D Diagnosis of underlying cause E Recognizing misdiagnosis

Reliable Diagnosis Challenges (RDC) Taxonomy

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Patient safety event reports (n=4,352) Morbidity & Mortality reports (n=24) Literature search

Results

Closed malpractice claims (n=403) Specialist focus groups (n=6)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

75 diagnostic pitfall-related reports 10 diagnostic pitfall-related reports 155 diagnostic pitfall-related articles

Results

Patient safety event reports (n=4,352) Morbidity & Mortality reports (n=24) Literature search Closed malpractice claims (n=403) 396 diagnostic pitfall-related claims 355 focus group responses Specialist focus groups (n=6)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Results

TOTAL DEER = 1208 TOTAL RDC = 1041

75 diagnostic pitfall-related reports 10 diagnostic pitfall-related reports 155 diagnostic pitfall-related articles Patient safety event reports (n=4,352) Morbidity & Mortality reports (n=24) Literature search Closed malpractice claims (n=403) 396 diagnostic pitfall-related claims 355 focus group responses Specialist focus groups (n=6) 201 DEER 204 RDC 106 DEER 101 RDC 15 DEER 15 RDC 711 DEER 625 RDC 175 DEER 96 RDC

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Results – DEER Taxonomy Errors (n = 1208)

7 154 141 503 260 101 42 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Access/ Presentation History Physical Exam Tests Assessment Referral/ Consult Follow-up

Frequency Diagnostic Process Steps

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Results - RDC Taxonomy Issues (n = 1041)

305 111 314 89 222 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Challenging disease presentation Patient factors Testing challenges Stressors Broader Challenges

Frequency Diagnosis Challenges

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Examples of generic and disease-specific diagnostic pitfalls identified:

  • Disease A repeatedly mistaken for Disease B
  • Bipolar disease mistaken for depression
  • Failure to appreciate test/exam limitations
  • Pt w/ breast lump and negative mammogram and/or ultrasound
  • Atypical presentation
  • Addison’s disease presenting with cognitive difficulties
  • Presuming chronic disease accounts for new symptoms
  • Lung cancer: failure to pursue new/unresolving pulmonary sx in patient

with pre-existing COPD

  • Failure to monitor evolving symptom
  • Cranial imagining can be normal shortly after head injury, but chronic

subdural hematoma later develops

Results

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Diagnostic Situational Awareness Model

slide-32
SLIDE 32
slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • SUPPLIMENTAL

SLIDES

slide-34
SLIDE 34

2 Key Improvement Concepts

  • Situational Awareness
  • Safety Nets
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Diagnostic Risk Situational Awareness

  • Specialized type of situational awareness
  • High reliability organizations/theory

– High worry anticipation of what can go wrong – Preoccupied w/ risks recognizing/preventing

  • Appreciation diagnosis uncertainty, limitations

– Limitations of tests, systems’ vulnerabilities – Knowing when “over head” need for help

  • Making failures visible
  • Don’t miss diagnoses, red flag symptoms
  • Diagnostic pitfalls – potentially useful construct

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Diagnostic Risk Safety Nets

  • Recognizing inherent uncertainties/risks, build

in mitigation, protections, recovery structures and processes

  • Proactive, systematic follow-up, feedback via

closed loop systems

  • Major role for HIT to hard-wire

– To automate, ensure reliability, ease burden on staff/memory, ensure loops closed and outliers visible

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Failure to Consider: Cognitive vs. System Problem?

Why did clinician fail to consider?

  • Lack knowledge, memory recall
  • Inadequate time
  • Failure to elect key hx or physical
  • Competing diagnoses, symptoms
  • Rare, atypical
  • Tests threw off
  • Distractions
  • Biases; heuristic

What are the causes? What are the remedies?

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Pitfall N Example

  • 1. Family History

Issues

4

  • Failure to obtain family history of breast cancer
  • Under-weighing family history of breast cancer
  • 2. Atypical

Presentation/ Cognitive Challenges

6

  • Underestimating risk of BC in young symptomatic

patients

  • Fast-growing cancers arising during MMG interval
  • Under-weighing complaints of patients with

psychiatric diagnoses

  • Prioritizing chronic medical or social issues over

screenings in complex patients

  • 3. False Negative

Physical Exam

2

  • Lump felt to be benign on physical exam
  • Bias in wanting to reassure patient, due to low

likelihood of BC

  • 4. Fibrocystic/Dense

Breast Dilemmas

9

  • Fibrocystic breast tissue can obscure underlying BC

in MMG

  • Not recognizing changes in breast density over time
  • Failure to investigate unilateral fibrocystic changes
  • Failure to investigate breast lump with FNA in

patient with dense breasts and negative U/S

Breast Cancer Pitfalls: Malpractice Cases Review

Preliminary Findings

Schiff et al. Unpublished data. Coverys/CRICO Closed Claims Review, 2016

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Pitfall N Example

  • 5. Screening vs.

Diagnostic Mammogram Order

2

  • Ordering/performing a screening MMG, rather than

a diagnostic MMG

  • 6. False Negative

Mammogram

9

  • False negative MMG in pt with fibrocystic breasts
  • Failure to reevaluate breast complaints in light of

previously negative MMG

  • Misreading of MMG by radiologists
  • Failure to follow-up on nipple retraction observed
  • n MMG, attributing it to imaging technique
  • Falsely reassuring negative “additional views”
  • 7. False Negative

Ultrasound

2

  • Falsely reassuring negative U/S in pts with breast

lump

  • 8. Surgical Referral

4

  • Failure to refer to breast surgeon
  • Breast lump appearing benign to surgeon palpation
  • Patient failure to follow-up on referral

Schiff et al. Unpublished data. Coverys/CRICO Closed Claims Review, 2016

Breast Cancer Pitfalls: Malpractice Cases Review

Preliminary Findings

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Pitfall N Example

  • 9. Biopsy Performance/

Interpretation

1

  • Inability to recognize missed sampling due to

bleeding/complications and failure to repeat biopsy

  • 10. Failure to Order

Further Studies

2

  • Failure to order diagnostic imaging studies (MMG

and U/S)

  • Failure to recommend excisional biopsy
  • 11. Diffusion of

Responsibility/ Coordination Issues

4

  • Failure to document/ensure pt was receiving

screening MMGS and breast exams

  • Failed coordination/communication between PCP

and GYN

  • 12. Other Symptoms

8

  • Failure to follow-up on resolution of mastitis
  • Failure to pursue etiology of persistent galactorrhea
  • Pursuing lymphoma as cause of lymphadenopathy
  • Axillar lymphadenopathy lost due to fact that not

incorporated into BIRADS coding (revised now)

  • Failure to work up persistent painful cyst

Breast Cancer Pitfalls: Malpractice Cases Review

Preliminary Findings

Schiff et al. Unpublished data. Coverys/CRICO Closed Claims Review, 2016

slide-41
SLIDE 41
slide-42
SLIDE 42

Will history someday show that the electronic medical record almost did the great state of Texas in? We are in the middle of a simmering crisis in medical data

  • management. Like computer servers everywhere, hospital servers

store great masses of trivia mixed with valuable information and gross misinformation, all cut and pasted and endlessly reiterated There is no time to dig and, even worse, no time to do what we were trained to do — slow down, go to the source, and start from the beginning.

With Electronic Medical Records, Doctors Read When They Should Talk

Abigail Zuger New York Times 10/13/2014

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Role for Electronic Documentation Goals and Features of Redesigned Systems

Providing access to information Ensure ease, speed, and selectivity of information searches; aid cognition through aggregation, trending, contextual relevance, and minimizing of superfluous data. Recording and sharing assessments Provide a space for recording thoughtful, succinct assessments, differential diagnoses, contingencies, and unanswered questions; facilitate sharing and review of assessments by both patient and

  • ther clinicians.

Maintaining dynamic patient history Carry forward information for recall, avoiding repetitive pt querying and recording while minimizing erroneous copying and pasting Maintaining problem lists Ensure that problem lists are integrated into workflow to allow for continuous updating. Tracking medications Record medications patient is actually taking, patient responses to medications, and adverse effects to avert misdiagnoses and ensure timely recognition of medication problems. Tracking tests Integrate management of diagnostic test results into note workflow to facilitate review, assessment, and responsive action as well as documentation of these steps.

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Clinical Documentation

CYA

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Canvass for Your Assessment

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Canvass for Your Assessment

  • Differential Diagnosis
  • Weighing Likelihoods
  • Etiology
  • Urgency
  • Degree of

certainty

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Role for Electronic Documentation Goals and Features of Redesigned Systems

Ensuring coordination and continuity Aggregate and integrate data from all care episodes and fragmented encounters to permit thoughtful synthesis. Enabling follow-up Facilitate patient education about potential red-flag symptoms; track follow-up. Providing feedback Automatically provide feedback to clinicians upstream, facilitating learning from outcomes of diagnostic decisions. Providing prompts Provide checklists to minimize reliance on memory and directed questioning to aid in diagnostic thoroughness and problem solving. Providing placeholder for resumption of work Delineate clearly in the record where clinician should resume work after interruption, preventing lapses in data collection and thought process.

Schiff & Bates NEJM 2010
slide-49
SLIDE 49

Water goes on the same time each day, regardless of whether it is raining or lawn is flooded

Open Loop System

Schiff A J Med 2008

49

slide-50
SLIDE 50

50

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Feedback –Key Role in Safety

  • Structural commitment patient role to play
  • Embodies/conveys message: uncertainty, caring,

reassurance, access if needed

  • Allows deployment of test of time, more conservative

diagnosis

  • Enables differential diagnosis
  • Emphasizes that disease is dynamic
  • Reinforces culture of learning & improvement
  • Illustrates how much disease is self limited
  • Makes invisible missed diagnoses visible

51

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Examples of Feedback Learning

Feeding back to upstream hospital

  • spinal epidural abscess

IVR follow-up post urgent care visit

  • UAB Berner project

Dedicated Dx Error M&M Autopsy Feedback

  • 7/32 MDs aware disseminated CMV

ED residents post admission tracking Feedback to previous service Tracking persistent mysteries Chart correction by patients Radiology/pathology

  • systematic second reviews

2nd opinion cases

  • Best Doctors dx changed

Linking lab and pharmacy data

  • to find signal of errors (missed ↑ TSH)

Urgent care

  • call back f/up systems

Malpractice

  • knock on the door

52

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Feedback- Challenges

  • Effort, time, support required
  • Discontinuities
  • Can convey non-reassuring message
  • Feedback fatigue
  • Non-response not always good predictor of

misdiagnosis as multiple confounders

  • Tampering – form of availability bias

53

slide-54
SLIDE 54
  • 1. Essential Data Elements - Elements of Hx, P.exam, tests data that

should be reliably obtained for every pt presenting with given sx. In many situations can reliably be done w/ computer questionnaire.

  • 2. Don’t miss diagnoses –critical dx can present w/ sx that are fatal or

have serious consequences if not recognized and rx promptly. These dx should be considered in every patient with that symptom.

  • 3. Red flag symptoms- sx or findings (e.g. back pain with new urinary

incontinence in cancer patient) that may indicate serious condition & should lead to heightened suspicion/evaluation for don’t miss dx.

Schiff & Leape Acad Med 2012 Schiff BMJ Safety & Qual 2012

Diagnosis Essentials Checklist

54

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Fatigue Checklist (27 diagnoses)

♠ Don’t miss * Often missed Prevalence

Ely Acad Med 2010

Obstructive sleep apnea ♠Depression, anxiety Deconditioning *Drugs (beta blocker, clonidine, alcohol) Chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia ♠*Infections, infectious mononucleosis, hepatitis, pneumonia, mastitis ♠Pregnancy ♠*Anemia Vitamin D deficiency ♠Hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism ♠Hypokalemia, hyponatremia ♠*Myocardial infarction ♠Celiac disease ♠Disturbance of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium ♠Polymyalgia rheumatica/Temporal arteritis Parkinson disease Hypogonadism Myasthenia gravis ♠*Heart failure, myocarditis Pulmonary, hepatic, renal failure Restless legs syndrome Multiple sclerosis ♠Carbon monoxide ♠Adrenal insufficiency, Addison’s disease B12 deficiency ♠Botulism Black widow spider bite

slide-56
SLIDE 56
  • 4. Potential drug causes – meds that can cause the symptom. High %

sx med side effects, yet infrequently considered.

  • 5. Required referrals - When is specialist expertise or technology

needed to adequately and safely evaluate the patient? Includes possible rare conditions that only specialists have sufficient experience or where required testing (biopsy or endoscopy)

  • 6. Patient follow-up instructions and plan - Warnings that patients

should receive regarding specific symptoms that should lead them to return or call. These should be in writing and include a time

  • frame. (e.g. call if you develop rash or fever, or if you are not

improved in 48 hours)

Schiff & Leape Acad Med 2012 Schiff BMJ Safety & Qual 2012

Diagnosis Essentials Checklist

56

slide-57
SLIDE 57

3rd generation Dx support

Cerner with Isabel integration

slide-58
SLIDE 58
slide-59
SLIDE 59

Role for Electronic Documentation Goals and Features of Redesigned Systems

Calculating Bayesian probabilities Embed calculator into notes to reduce errors and minimize biases in subjective estimation of diagnostic probabilities. Providing access to information sources Provide instant access to knowledge resources through context- specific “info buttons” triggered by keywords in notes that link user to relevant textbooks and guidelines. Offering second opinion or consultation Integrate immediate online or telephone access to consultants to answer questions related to referral triage, testing strategies, or definitive diagnostic assessments. Increasing efficiency More thoughtful design, workflow integration, easing and distribution of documentation burden could speed up charting, freeing time for communication and cognition.

Schiff & Bates NEJM 2010
slide-60
SLIDE 60
  • Push for timely access
  • Reliable follow-up, continuity
  • Keen observer, reporter sx
  • Proactive on test results
  • Sharing hunches
  • Curiously reading on own
  • Meticulously adhering w/

empiric trial regimens

  • Active as co-investigator
  • Being patient: time & tests
  • Recruiting family for support
  • Respecting limits on staff time,

society resources

  • Agreeing to disagree
  • Help in building, maintaining

trust and communication

  • Getting involved with patient
  • rganizations

Role for Patient

In Minimizing and Preventing Diagnosis Error and Delay

60

slide-61
SLIDE 61
  • Push for timely access
  • Reliable follow-up, continuity
  • Keen observer, reporter sx
  • Proactive on test results
  • Sharing hunches
  • Curiously reading on own
  • Meticulously adhering w/

empiric trial regimens

  • Active as co-investigator
  • Being patient: time & tests
  • Recruiting family for support
  • Respecting limits on staff time,

society resources

  • Agreeing to disagree
  • Help in building, maintaining

trust and communication

  • Getting involved with patient
  • rganizations

Key question is: What will it take at the provider and institutional end to support these roles and help them flourish?

61

Role for Patient

In Minimizing and Preventing Diagnosis Error and Delay

slide-62
SLIDE 62

Diagnostic Pitfalls: A New Paradigm to Understand and Prevent Diagnostic Error

Gordon Schiff, MD1,2, Mayya Volodarskaya1, Harry Reyes Nieva1,2, Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH3,4, Adam Wright, PhD1,2

1 Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, BWH 2 Harvard Medical School 3 Health Policy and Quality Program, Houston VA Health Services 4 Baylor College of Medicine
slide-63
SLIDE 63

Aim 1: Develop & refine new construct: diagnostic pitfalls Clinical situations vulnerable to repeated errors that lead to missed, delayed, or wrong diagnosis Seeking to overcoming the silo’s of “cognitive”

  • vs. “system” errors

Specific Aims

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Study Definition Clinical situations vulnerable to repeated errors that lead to missed, delayed, or wrong diagnosis

Results

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Aim 1: Develop & refine new construct: diagnostic pitfalls Clinical situations vulnerable to repeated errors that lead to missed, delayed, or wrong diagnosis Aim 2: Review multiple data sources to create list of disease-specific and general diagnostic pitfalls Aim 3: Design and test the accuracy of retrospective electronic screens (triggers) for diagnostic pitfalls using EMR data

Specific Aims

slide-66
SLIDE 66

Data elements collected:

  • Correct and wrong diagnoses
  • Presenting signs and symptoms
  • Breakdown(s) in the diagnostic process
  • Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research (DEER)

Taxonomy

  • Reliable Diagnosis Challenges (RDC) Taxonomy

Methods

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Strengths

  • Wide range of diseases
  • Breadth of high-quality data sources
  • Comprehensive set of diagnostic errors represented
  • Structured data collection tools
  • Consistent coder with secondary review by clinician
slide-68
SLIDE 68
  • Literature search limitations
  • Limited to keyword-tagged articles
  • Over-representation of individual case reports
  • Malpractice claims & patient safety events
  • Under/selective reporting
  • Coding may be subject to reviewer bias
  • Each case reviewed by research assistant and internist

Limitations

slide-69
SLIDE 69
  • Diagnostic pitfalls construct is useful for considering the

synergies between system and cognitive diagnostic failures

  • Identified recurring patterns of generic and disease-specific

diagnostic pitfalls

  • Low yield of diagnostic errors found in patient safety event

reports

  • Pitfalls identified were predominantly related to testing issues

Conclusions

slide-70
SLIDE 70
slide-71
SLIDE 71

71

slide-72
SLIDE 72

PROMISES Chart review preliminary results:

Number of potential adverse events

72

126 41

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Number of events

  • Potential adverse events in intervention practices declined

by almost 70% after participation in the PROMISES program

Before After Intervention practices

slide-73
SLIDE 73

PROMISES Chart review preliminary results:

Number of serious potential adverse events

73
  • Serious potential adverse events in intervention practices

declined by 57% after participation in the PROMISES program

Before After Intervention practices 27 10

5 10 15 20 25

Number of events

slide-74
SLIDE 74

74

ONLY ~50-50 chance this order results in colonoscopy actually being performed !

slide-75
SLIDE 75

To Reduce Missed and Delayed Diagnoses of Colorectal Cancer At-Risk Patient Identification and Tracking Leverage Health Information Technology and Population-based Management and Outreach Optimized Teamwork Primary Drivers Secondary Drivers Patient and Family Engagement Closed Loops for Referrals and Tests

Engage diverse group of institutional leaders and stakeholders across the organization Seek to understand and reduce barriers to scheduling, bowel prep, and day-of-test navigation Reduce barriers for patients to communicate with care team around new/concerning symptoms or for help with navigating care system Engage patient partners in improvement processes Seek regular formal and informal patient feedback on process Develop clear protocols and algorithms, integrated into care workflow and HIT Clearly define roles, responsibilities and handoffs/interactions within care team Engage and partner with specialists Promote culture of collaboration and teamwork Empanel patients Address risk at office visits Identify and manage patient risk factors Identify and track patients who are symptomatic, high-risk and/or overdue for screening Develop clear care pathways for screening and diagnosis Ensure structured data capture and reliable update of family history, diagnoses and symptoms. Ensure needed referral access and capacity Ensure coordinated system for scheduling, tracking referrals and tests through to referral partner Develop reliable processes to support patient education around bowel prep Track and develop systems to reduce and f/up on no-shows/failure to schedule Ensure reliable and timely communication of test results to patients Develop system for timely, reliable follow-up of abnormal test results Create population-based outreach and tracking systems. Develop reports to identify and notify patients due for screening and patients that are hard to reach. Identify and provide needed resources for population management Harvard Center for Primary Care Academic Improvement Collaborative

Colorectal Cancer Driver Diagram

10/2014 Ensure Organizational Alignment

Communicate how this work builds on and aligns with other initiatives across the
  • rganization
Create clear organization-wide consensus for CRC screening and guidelines
slide-76
SLIDE 76

10 Principles for Engaging Dx Error

1. Diagnosis as a multi-dimensional construct

  • 2.  reliance on human memory
  • 3. Leverage HIT: clinical documentation, feedback/f/up
  • 4. Co-production of Dx (patient; team)
  • 5. Need for new science and culture of uncertainty
  • 6. Culture/praxis of conservative dx
  • 7. Foundation of trusting, continuous relationships
  • 8. Linkages Dx & Rx (diagnosing what matters)
  • 9. Special role/responsibility iatrogenic dx
  • 10. Synergies with “disease specific” issues, pitfalls

76

Schiff, Institute of Medicine Testimony 8/2014

slide-77
SLIDE 77

Tampering

  • Reflex actions in response to errors
  • Need to understanding/diagnose difference

between special cause vs. common cause variation

  • Responding to special cause as if it was

common cause analogous to availability bias – where fail to weigh true incidence, instead

  • verweigh more vividly recalled event.

77

slide-78
SLIDE 78

Suboptimization How to recognize and avoid

  • Suboptimization refers to the process of
  • ptimizing one element of the system at the

expense of the other parts of the system and the larger whole.

– Every lab perfecting own ordering, reporting system – Every unit in hospital its own system – Ditto every practice and doctor

  • Workarounds as both symptoms of and

contributor to problems

78

slide-79
SLIDE 79

Workarounds

  • Most diagnostic processes developed in an ad

hoc fashion over time; filled with workarounds and unnecessary steps and opportunities for error.

  • Workaround=bypass problems

– Often creative, innovative, successful – But temporary, suboptimal to fixing problem – Can mask embedded problems, inhibit solving – Worse yet, may introduce new problems

79

slide-80
SLIDE 80

Redundancy

  • Duplication of critical components of a system

with the intention of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the case of a backup or fail- safe, or parallel systems

  • However to extent redundancy increases

complexity, dilutes responsibility and even encourages risk taking, should be questioned as safety strategy.

  • Redundant systems can be costly, using

valuable resources that could be freed for more reliable, productive system.

80

slide-81
SLIDE 81

The question that drives safety work in a just culture is not who is responsible for failure, rather, it asks what is responsible for things going

  • wrong. What is the set of engineered

and organized circumstances that is responsible for putting people in a position where they end up doing things that go wrong?”

― Sidney Dekker, Just Culture

slide-82
SLIDE 82
slide-83
SLIDE 83

Confidence vs. Accuracy – Not Well Calibrated?

Shynkaruk and Thompson Memory & Cognition 2006

slide-84
SLIDE 84
slide-85
SLIDE 85

Arrogance Over- confidence Spotty Follow-up Inadequate Feedback Fail to Share Uncertainties Time Pressures Defensive- ness Malpractice Fears

slide-86
SLIDE 86
slide-87
SLIDE 87

DEER Taxonomy Subcategory Frequency % (N) Failure in ordering needed test(s) 17% (164) Failure to consider correct diagnosis 12% (112) Failed/delayed follow-up of abnormal test result 9% (83) Failure in weighing critical piece of history data 8% (75) Failure/delay in ordering referral 6% (62)

Results: Most common DEER errors (n=1208)

slide-88
SLIDE 88

RDC Taxonomy Subcategory Frequency Test Follow-Up Issues

12% (103)

Recognition of Acuity/Severity

9% (73)

Test Performance/Interpretation

7% (62)

Diagnosis of Underlying Cause

6% (51)

Fragmentation of Care

6% (48)

Results: Most common RDC barriers (n=1041)

slide-89
SLIDE 89

Diagnosis by disease Frequency

Colorectal cancer 38 Lung cancer 36 Breast cancer 20 Myocardial infarction 20 Prostate cancer 18 Stroke 15 Sepsis 13 Bladder cancer 10 Pulmonary embolism 9 Brain Hemorrhage 8

Results: Top 10 Missed or Delayed Diagnoses

Diagnosis by system Frequency

Oncology 225 Neurology 89 Cardiology 50 Infectious disease 46 Other 40 Dermatology 37 Gastroenterology 35 Pulmonology 33 Rheumatology 29 Orthopedics 16

slide-90
SLIDE 90
slide-91
SLIDE 91
slide-92
SLIDE 92

Older ways thinking about Diagnosis, Error Newer, better ways to think about Dx and Improvement Good diagnosticians get it right 1st time 100% time Inexact science Goal: ↓ error & cycle times via more reliable systems and f/up Skillful diagnostician lore Quality Dx based on finely tuned distributed network/team

  • f people and processes

Dx--the doctor’s job Co-production Dx between clinicians (lab/radiol) & patient Pts seen as anxious, exaggerating, demanding, unreasonable expectations Patients as allies. Need to engage, negotiate, address fears

Schiff BMJ Qual Safety 9/13

slide-93
SLIDE 93

Clinical Practice

Clinical data-more the better Targeted, well organized data key Order lots of test to avoid missing Dx Appreciation test limitations, judicious ordering More specialty referrals. Utilization barriers (co-pays, prior auth) Pull systems to lower barriers for raising questions, real time virtual consults Frequent empirical drug trials when uncertain Conservative use of drug trails to avoid confusing the picture MD attention to screening and preventive care Automating, delegating clerical functions, teamwork

Schiff BMJ Qual Safety 9/13

slide-94
SLIDE 94

Mostly cognitive miscues Many rooted in processes, system failures Errors either system or cognitive Multifactorial w/ interacting cognitive--system factors Reactive approach learning about errors Proactively seeking out high risk situations Clinicians reactions: denial, defensive, others to blame and they making errors too Culture of actively seeking to learn from each other and share Dreading diagnostic dilemmas Welcoming intellectual & professional challenge Dx as distinct labels, events Dx as fuzzy, multifactorial, evolving over time

New Thinking About Diagnosis, Errors

Schiff BMJ Qual Safety 9/13

slide-95
SLIDE 95

Documentation-dumb, time consuming, CYA Documentation-tool, friend, canvass for assessment to share assessments, uncertainty, reflect Say & write as little as possible as could be used again you legally Share uncertainties to maximize communication and engagement Don’t let pts know about errors lest they sue, feel guilty Pts often find out about errors anyway; we should anticipate, engage questions Call if not better; no news is good news Systemic proactive feedback and follow-up Eschew/hide uncertainty Leverage, disclose learn from uncertainty

Documentation Communication

Schiff BMJ Qual Safety 9/13

slide-96
SLIDE 96

Vigilance, defensive practice stimulated by fear malpractice suits Drive out fear. Making Dx challenges fun again More accountability, incentives, P4P Clinician engagement, trust, culture changes, Yet to be defined best practices More rules, requirements Standardization, flexibility Exhortations to have "high index of suspicion" Situational awareness- appreciation limitations tests, memory, diseases Redundancies, double checks Highly reliable systems safer than multiple halfway systems Reflex changes in response to errors Avoiding tampering; understand special common cause variation

Global Solutions

slide-97
SLIDE 97

97

Ricardo Levins Morales Art Studio

slide-98
SLIDE 98

So what, concretely should I do?

  • 1. Diagnosis error case conferences/M&M’s
  • Extreme safety culture & learning climate
  • 2. Hard wire feedback/follow-up, closed loops
  • Proactive systematic follow-up; Open Notes
  • 3. Engineering uncertainty into diagnosis
  • Differential diagnosis, sharing uncertainties w/

pt

  • 4. HIT/Electronic documentation redesign
  • Get out of the way; get (helpfully) into the fray
  • Eliminate useless info/noise; voice in real info

Involve patients in all of the above

slide-99
SLIDE 99

Principles for Leveraging, Learning, Lessening Diagnostic Error in Medicine

  •  Reliance on memory
  • New science of diagnostic uncertainty
  • Linkages Dx & Rx
  • Leverage HIT
  • Re-engineering diagnosis as a system
  • Diagnostician of future
slide-100
SLIDE 100

IOM Quality Reports

slide-101
SLIDE 101

IOM Report September 2015

slide-102
SLIDE 102

Marshal Wolf Brigham

slide-103
SLIDE 103

103

  • Dr. Gregory House

Sherlock Holmes

slide-104
SLIDE 104

Don Berwick

Formerly – President and CEO Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Director Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Former MA Governor Candidate

104

slide-105
SLIDE 105

Genius diagnosticians make great stories, but they don't make great health care. The idea is to make accuracy reliable, not heroic

Don Berwick Boston Globe 7/14/2002

105

slide-106
SLIDE 106
slide-107
SLIDE 107

107