Measures of diagnostic accuracy and timeliness

Jason Maude Jason.Maude at ISABELHEALTHCARE.COM
Mon Aug 4 14:15:27 UTC 2014


Cindy
This is really interesting and your Council should be congratulated for
asking for this.

We have started to see some research on the time to diagnosis for
particular diseases-the BJC published a paper on time to diagnosis for
various cancers and Hardeep Singh published a paper on time to diagnosis
for lung cancer for example. If this research was available for more
diseases, we would then have an average time to diagnosis for diseases
which could be used as a bench mark to then judge timeliness.

The UK study on times to diagnose cancer used the UK national General
Practice database so I assume the same database (or other national
databases) could be used to look at other diseases. I have long believed
that this research is a vital step in enabling us to accurately judge
timeliness which your Council has quite rightly asked for information on.

Regards
Jason


Jason Maude
Founder and CEO Isabel Healthcare
Tel: +44 1428 644886
Tel: +1 703 879 1890
www.isabelhealthcare.com <http://www.isabelhealthcare.com/>




On 20/07/2014 17:25, "Barnard, Cindy" <CBarnard at NMH.ORG> wrote:

>Our Patient Family Advisory Council has asked that we develop or adopt
>some form of measurement of diagnostic accuracy and timeliness.  We have
>discussed with them the early stage of research and thinking on this
>topic, and they understand this, yet are urging focused action.
>
>We have the obvious 'defect' measures - e.g. individual instances in
>which we identify an inaccurate or delayed diagnosis based on
>patient/clinician report or even autopsy, or rates of error or delay
>identified through systematic over-read of imaging, anatomic pathology,
>and other studies.
>
>What we do not have is a systematic assessment of accurate and timely
>diagnosis in any population of patients.
>
>What are measures in place in other organizations, and/or what measures
>should we be working to develop - balancing the undeniable importance of
>this topic with the impossibility of doing comprehensive routine medical
>record reviews - ?
>
>Have you identified validated sampling approaches?  Trigger tools? EMR
>logic which would do initial case finding for subsequent record review?
>Any actual metrics?
>
>thanks
>Cindy Barnard
>
>
>
>
>
>Cynthia Barnard
>Director, Quality Strategies
>
>Northwestern Memorial Hospital
>211 E Ontario #1550
>Chicago IL 60611
>312.926.4822 office
>312.695.7953 pager
>312.926.9879 fax
>cbarnard at nmh.org
>northwesternmedicine.org
>
>
>
>This message and any included attachments are intended only for the
>addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and
>may constitute proprietary or non-public information under international,
>federal, or state laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying,
>distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may
>be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this
>message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail.
>
>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://www.lsoft.com/resources/faq.asp#4A
>
>http://LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG/ (with your password)
>
>Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at:
>http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>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="http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPRO
>VEDX&A=1" 
>target="_blank">http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SU
>BED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1</a>
></p>










More information about the Test mailing list