disappointed

Ted.E.Palen at KP.ORG Ted.E.Palen at KP.ORG
Sun Sep 27 03:20:02 UTC 2015


I often list a general diagnosis if I am unsure of a specific diagnosis. Such as, cough, instead of viral bronchitis, or knee pain instead of collateral ligament strain, if I am not sure of the more specific diagnosis.  

Ted E. Palen, PhD, MD, MSPH
Physician Manager Clinical Reporting 
Utilization Management
Institute of Health Research
Colorado Permanente Medical Group
10065 E Harvard Ave, Suite 300
Denver CO  80231

Phone: 303-614-1215
Fax: 303-614-1305
email: ted.e.palen at kp.org

> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:50 AM, "Charlie Garland - The Innovation Outlet" <cgarland at INNOVATIONOUTLET.BIZ> wrote:
> 
> Mark, you (and others here) bring up an outstanding point.  Imagine for a minute what would happen if the EMR screen suddenly had a data entry field for a "degree of certainty" value (percentage) next to the ICD code.  Would this not compel the physician to think just a bit more carefully -- at that very moment -- about just how confident he/she is about the Dx?  And, wouldn't that then (some portion of the time) trigger the contemplation of at least one alternative DDx?
> 
> Now, imagine that "confidence field" being gone (which it is).  Isn't the implicit assumption here that the diagnostician is 100% confident of his/her diagnosis?  Whether or not this is how anyone might intend or infer the EMR data, in some cases, that is the way it's regarded.  Considering what Brian Jackson mentioned, in some portion of cases, there is clearly a degree of uncertainty that is in the mix.  And that data value -- regardless of how accurately it can be captured -- is something that seems likely to improve the prospects of patient safety, over the long haul at least.
> 
> It would be an interesting research study to see what would happen if an institution's EMR system explicitly offered an additional field or two (confidence interval, most likely DDx, etc.).  How would physicians respond to this, over time?  What might be the implications of that additional data -- and the "forcing strategy" effect it would possibly have on diagnosticians (and others accessing the same data) -- upon Dx error rates?
> 
> Just one opinion.
> 
> =================================================
>  
> Charlie Garland, President
> 
> The Innovation Outlet
>           <sigimg1.jpg>
>    Get Plugged-In!TM
> 
> office:  212.535.5385
> mobile: 646.872.0256 
> 
> Developer of The Innovation Cube (a.k.a. CubieTM - a Critical Thinking & Creative Problem-Solving Tool)
> Developer of Cognitive Buoyancy ("The Trigger to Innovation")  
> Senior Fellow of HITLAB (Healthcare Innovation & Technology Laboratory @ Columbia University Medical Center)
> Proud Affiliate of Schaffer Consulting (featuring RapidResults® Innovation)
> Certified in Polarity ThinkingTM 
> Improve Your Sales: www.InnoSalesCoach.com (Applying Innovation Tools, Methods, & Insights to Your Sales/Marketing Process)
> Increase Your Innovation Capacity: Certified Innovation CoachTM (Innovator MindsetTM Assessments)
> Main Website: www.TheInnovationOutlet.com 
>  
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/innovationoutlet
> Twitter: @innovationator
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] disappointed
> From: Mark Graber <graber.mark at GMAIL.COM>
> Date: Thu, September 24, 2015 8:12 pm
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> I'm seconding Brian Jackson's suggestion to move towards attaching levels of certainty to each diagnosis.  I'm especially fond of the "NYD" label Sam Campbell had on his list of the 10 best things to have happened in the field of emergency medicine in Canada.   NYD = not yet diagnoses.  This would alert the next person in the chain to keep thinking !   If we only had an ICD-10 code for that …..
> 
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Jackson, Brian <brian.jackson at aruplab.com> wrote:
> 
> We might want to be careful about this one.  From a research perspective, analyzing time to diagnosis would indeed be interesting and productive.  But if in the process we give regulators, payors and attorneys new ways to punish delays at an individual physician level, it could amplify premature closure and overdiagnosis.
>  
> A suggestion others have brought up, and I suspect this needs to be pushed more aggressively, is the concept of explicitly labeling diagnoses with their level of certainty, e.g. as tentative or working diagnoses where appropriate.  Sometimes empiric therapy is the best way to proceed.  When empiric therapy fails, it doesn’t necessarily mean the diagnostic process failed, i.e. that a diagnostic error occurred.
>  
> Many of the complications introduced by both medicolegal and quality improvement efforts come from treating diagnosis as a black and white situation.  As much as I like the current news coverage of the IOM report, it’s reinforcing that black/white perspective.
>  
> --Brian Jackson
>  
> From: robert bell [mailto:0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:25 PM
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] disappointed
>  
> But our foot is in the door.  
>  
> Also, as we get more information on Time to Diagnosis, it would seem that there could be a kind of “standard time to diagnosis,” for less common diseases/conditions that could be adjusted from time to time as we get more proficient (e.g. for myasthenia gravis), perhaps even adjusted in some way for the medical sophistication of the medical center in question!
>  
> Do we need to talk about standards for what is a delayed diagnosis?  Or maybe that has already been discussed.
>  
> Just publishing a list of the common conditions we THINK are diseases of delayed diagnosis would be a start.
>  
> Rob Bell, M.D.
>  
>  
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Michael Grossman <Michael.Grossman at MIHS.ORG> wrote:
>  
> I agree with your assessment. The IOM sometimes seems to fall short of expectations. Their relatively recent report on Graduate Medical Education was disappointing. 
> The fact that multiple news agencies are running with this story may lead to some misunderstandings , especially on the nature of "delayed diagnoses".
> Michael Grossman, MD MACP
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert L Wears, MD, MS, PhD [mailto:wears at UFL.EDU] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:31 AM
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> Subject: [IMPROVEDX] disappointed
> 
> Great that misdiagnosis and related failures are getting attention, but ...
> 
> This is a disappointing effort; a naïve, keyhole view of a complex problem.
> 
> I count 82 mentions of 'error' in the first 15 pages (~5.5 per page), 753 in the entire document.
> 
> Lots of discussion about biases (78 mentions) but important issues that challenge the focus on 'error', such as hindsight bias, or outcome bias, are never mentioned even once.
> 
> This restriction to a very narrow framing of the problem is unlikely to lead to progress.
> 
> bob
> 
> 
> 
> Robert L Wears, MD, MS, PhD
> University of Florida              Imperial College London
> wears at ufl.edu                        r.wears at imperial.ac.uk
> 1-904-244-4405 (ass't)            +44 (0)791 015 2219
> Nothing matters very much, and very few things matter at all.
>                                                  ---Balfour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve 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=IMPROVEDX&A=1" target="_blank">http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1</a>
> </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve 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=IMPROVEDX&A=1" target="_blank">http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1</a>
> </p>
>  
> Robert M. Bell, M.D., Ph.C.
> P.O. Box 3668
> West Sedona, AZ  86340-3668
> USA
> Tel: Fax: 928 203-4517
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted by this e-mail and any included
> attachments are from ARUP Laboratories and are intended only for the
> recipient. The information contained in this message is confidential
> and may constitute inside or non-public information under
> international, federal, or state securities laws, or protected health
> information and is intended only for the use of the recipient.
> Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or use of
> such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please promptly delete this e-mail
> and notify the sender of the delivery error or you may call ARUP
> Laboratories Compliance Hot Line in Salt Lake City, Utah USA at (+1
> (800) 522-2787 ext. 2100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> 
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> 
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/






Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine


HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20150926/184c9bcf/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list