[EXTERNAL] [IMPROVEDX] quick ?
Alan.Morris at IMAIL.ORG
Wed Apr 23 19:35:06 UTC 2014
I think Ross Koppel has it right. Since we do not know the
decision-making process used by the clinicians, we cannot know how well
they performed. The reported figures are likely largely underestimated,
in my view.
Have a nice day.
Alan H. Morris, M.D.
On 4/23/14, 12:32 PM, "Ross Koppel" <rkoppel at SAS.UPENN.EDU> wrote:
>First, I want to second Mark's comment. It very much depends on the
>methodology used. Hardeep's methodology (as all methods) is limited to
>the parameters he used (charts, return visits, etc). While fine
>research (he's one of my heroes), it cannot be representative of the
>larger error rate, which would have to reflect the conditions that were
>unknown and did not appear in charts or in subsequent revisits or
>re-admits. I don't know what that ratio is, but it's non-trivial. Very
>non-trivial. Then, of course, as has been argued here, there's the
>definition of Dx error. If it's delayed to the point that something
>could have been done but was not, that's different than if it took a few
>years but made no difference.
>Ross Koppel, Ph.D. FACMI
>Sociology Dept and Sch. of Medicine
>Senior Fellow, LDI, Wharton
>University of Pennsylvania, Phila, PA 19104-6299
>215 576 8221 C: 215 518 0134
>On 4/23/2014 1:32 PM, Graber, Mark wrote:
>> We (I) believe the risk of diagnostic error in general medical settings
>>in the US is in the range of 10 - 15% (Graber. The Incidence of
>>Diagnostic Error in Medicine; BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:ii21-ii27.
>>doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001615). That's all errors, most of which
>>(thankfully) are inconsequential or caught. The risk of harm is clearly
>>much less and its hard to put a number on that.
>> The news stories centered on Hardeep's recent article ( The frequency
>>of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large
>> involving US adult populations. Singh H, et al. BMJ Qual Saf
>>2014;0:1-5. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627) where they identified a risk
>>of approximately 5% from chart reviews in primary care clinics. That
>>number is in the 10-15% ballpark, given that the approach would have
>>missed errors that weren't obvious from the medical record, and errors
>>for which the consequences played out elsewhere, and other methodologic
>> All of these numbers are based on research approaches. So far, there
>>aren't any healthcare organizations I know of that are measuring error
>>rates in real time, and the challenges of actually doing this are
>>substantial. We have little data on the error rate for surgical
>>patients, or patients seen in the ER. There is a great need for
>>research on this question, and for finding reliable and reproducible
>>ways to find and count these errors going forward. You can't improve
>>what you can't measure.
>> Mark L Graber, MD FACP
>> Senior Fellow, RTI International
>> Professor Emeritus, SUNY Stony Brook School of Medicine
>> Founder and President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine
>> Phone: 919 990-8497
>To unsubscribe from the IMPROVEDX:
>mail to:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>or click the following link: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>For additional information and subscription commands, visit:
>http://LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG/ (with your password)
>Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at:
>Moderator: Lorri Zipperer Lorri at ZPM1.com, Communication co-chair, Society
>for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
>To unsubscribe from the IMPROVEDX list, click the following link:<br>
More information about the Test