Ted.E.Palen at KP.ORG Ted.E.Palen at KP.ORG
Wed Apr 23 20:54:16 UTC 2014

Hi all
It is very hard if not impossible to know the "true diagnostic error 
rate."  That is because we will never know the true numerator. Patients 
are lost to follow-up, do not report back if symptoms resolve but the 
original diagnosis was wrong, or signs and symptoms persist and present as 
different diagnosis and if they see a different physician without prior 
information may never know a previous diagnosis was made.  Therefore, we 
will never know the true number of diagnostic errors.

Ted E. Palen, PhD MD, MSPH | Physician Investigator | Institute for Health 
Research | Kaiser Permanente Colorado
Physician Manager for Clinical Reporting | Medical Cost Management| 
Colorado Permanente Medical Group
( 303-614-1215 | 7 303-614-1305 | * ted.e.palen at kp.org

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or 
disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently 
delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or 
saving them.  Thank you.

From:   Ross Koppel <rkoppel at SAS.UPENN.EDU>
Date:   04/23/2014 01:04 PM
Subject:        Re: [IMPROVEDX] [EXTERNAL] [IMPROVEDX] quick ?

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:
> Stephen,
> 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 
observational studies
> 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 issues.
> 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
> 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

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>
<a href="
" target="_blank">

To unsubscribe from the IMPROVEDX list, click the following link:<br>
<a href="http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1" target="_blank">http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1</a>

HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20140423/99e5b5b4/attachment.html>

More information about the Test mailing list