Definition of Diagnosis Error

Peggy Zuckerman peggyzuckerman at GMAIL.COM
Sun Feb 5 16:41:18 UTC 2017


As a patient, I am aware of the challenges of getting an objective second
opinion when a "diagnosis" is written in stone or bits in the EHR.  If the
record could indicate the "working diagnosis", it might prevent the second
doctor from focusing his attention solely on that diagnosis. Just having
that reminder of the uncertainty of the diagnosis might free the doctor to
reexamine the level of evidence, etc.  Otherwise, he may be simply anchored
on that previous diagnosis, and never give the fresh review that is the
goal of the patient.

For that reason, many patients report going to another doctor without
making arrangements for those records to accompany him, fearing that
despite the imaging,the history, the labs, etc, the 'facts', would be over
shadowed by the initial diagnosis.

Peggy Zuckerman

Peggy Zuckerman
www.peggyRCC.com

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:06 PM, <Ted.E.Palen at kp.org> wrote:

> Great conversation
> I often cannot make a diagnosis the first time I see a patient. In fact it
> may take many visits, testing, and cogitation to arrive at the diagnosis
> that fits all the facts and even then it may be wrong.
> Early on in this process I am often frustrated by the need to "code" a
> diagnosis. Early on I may not know the diagnosis but if forced to code on
> it may often be in error. I sometimes resort to just coding the most
> pertinent symptoms (but the business people do not like that). It would be
> much better if our coding systems would allow for coding "preliminary" or
> "working" or "presumed" and finally "confirmed." But alas we are not, we
> are not allowed a coding system that is clinically relevant but rather the
> owners of the system profit from a coding billing system. Until this
> changes we will be forced to use inadequate means to document (and hence an
> inadequate means to measure) diagnostic reasoning.
>
> Ted E. Palen, PhD, MD
> Institute for Health Research
> Colorado Permanente Medical Group
> Denver, CO
> 303-614-1215 <(303)%20614-1215>
>
> On Jan 19, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Charlie Garland - The Innovation Outlet <
> cgarland at INNOVATIONOUTLET.BIZ <cgarland at innovationoutlet.biz>> wrote:
>
> *Caution: *This email came from outside Kaiser Permanente. Do not open
> attachments or click on links if you do not recognize the sender.
> ------------------------------
> Tom, I understand your perspective and you make an excellent point.  That
> said, it's all the more reason to collectively include that very
> perspective in any "standard" definition of Dx Error.  I heartily agree
> with the *dynamic *nature of the Dx process, and that explicitly
> including something akin to a "confidence interval" is not only
> appropriate, but would facilitate any physician's dilemma in having to make
> an either-or choice between a right and a wrong answer (e.g. one option
> would be to add a "confidence interval" field into the EMR, which could
> serve as a trigger/forcing strategy; I'm sure there are others).
>
> Some would tend to simply stick with the definition that we've currently
> been handed by IOM, seemingly suggesting "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>  Well, have a look at the outcomes data.  *It's broke*.
>
> While I would still advocate for a conscious recognition of the concept of
> "completeness" (i.e. don't stop exploring, just because you've found one
> answer), I do believe you're onto something very interesting and worth us
> all re-thinking.
>
> Charlie
> =================================================
>
> Charlie Garland
> Senior Fellow of HITLAB <http://www.hitlab.org> (Healthcare Innovation &
> Technology Laboratory @ Columbia University Medical Center)
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Definition of Diagnosis Error
> From: Twest54973
> <000000040134e744-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
> Date: Wed, January 18, 2017 6:29 pm
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> Dr Garland
>
> I must respectfully disagree ...
>
> Because EVERY dx a clinician makes is inherently an incomplete hypothesis
> that is not "completed" until the pt is followed serially over time to
> evaluate the pts response to a proposed therapeutic intervention(s)
>
> Diagnoses are not static objects : they  evolve over time by definition
>
> Perhaps It would be more relevant and truthful (and perhaps more easily
> measurable?) to classify diagnoses as preliminary, presumed, and
> probable/final as the clinician moves from less certainty to more certainty
> thru these three blurred stages  (as more data is gathered and the clinical
> course becomes more revealing )
>
> One could then compare the time course , appropriateness of testing
> strategies and accuracy between clinicians by each category
>
> Just a thought ...
>
> Tom Westover MD
> Cooper Medical School
> Camden NJ
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Charlie Garland - The Innovation Outlet <
> cgarland at INNOVATIONOUTLET.BIZ> wrote:
>
> Great question, Bob.  But I would ask a follow-up question to yours...
>
> What qualifies something as being "SIDM-approved"?  Is this a result of a
> democratic vote?  If so, by all members, by a steering committee, and/or by
> some other group herein?  I recall that Mark Graber openly invited feedback
> from the audience at the Sep 2015 conference (just after the IOM report was
> published) on these definitions, and he got a few suggestions in real time,
> but I don't know what happened thereafter.
>
> One suggestion I have is to supplement these three dimensions (*wrong*,
> *missed*, and *delayed*) with that of *incomplete*.  Perhaps there is
> more, but in my mind, "incomplete" is a unique form of Dx error that is not
> necessarily captured by any of the other three.  One could argue that it's
> merely a form of missed Dx, but to lump it in to that category would lose a
> crucial nuance of the physician's cognitive process (e.g. it would tend to
> obscure an important cognitive bias at play in such cases).  There's much
> more than just this example, but for brevity sake, I'll end there.
>
> Happy to elaborate/discuss further for anyone's interests...
>
> CG
>
> =================================================
>
> Charlie Garland
>
> Senior Fellow of HITLAB <http://www.hitlab.org> (Healthcare Innovation &
> Technology Laboratory @ Columbia University Medical Center)
> Member of the Board of Trustees at Creative Education Foundation
> <http://www.creativeeducationfoundation.org/>
> Developer of Cognitive Buoyancy <http://www.cognitivebuoyancy.com/> ("The
> Trigger to Innovation")
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Definition of Diagnosis Error
> From: Tom Benzoni <benzonit at GMAIL.COM>
> Date: Wed, January 18, 2017 11:17 am
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> There are too many flaws in the definition to give it credibility.
>
> Tom
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 8:33 AM, "Bob Latino" <blatino at reliability.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this IOM Definition of Diagnosis Error an accepted definition by SIDM?
>>
>> What is Diagnostic Error?
>> The Institute of Medicine recently defined diagnostic error as the
>> failure to (a) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the
>> patient’s health problem(s) or (b) communicate that explanation to the
>> patient. Simply put, these are diagnoses that are missed altogether, wrong,
>> or should have been made much earlier.
>>
>> These categories overlap, but examples help illustrate some differences:
>> *A missed diagnosis *refers to a patient whose medical complaints are
>> never explained. Many patients with chronic fatigue, or chronic pain fall
>> into this category, as well as patients with more specific complaints that
>> are never accurately diagnosed.
>>
>> *A wrong diagnosis* occurs, for example, if a patient truly having a
>> heart attack is told their pain is from acid indigestion. The original
>> diagnosis is found to be incorrect because the true cause is discovered
>> later.
>>
>> *A delayed diagnosis* refers to a case where the diagnosis should have
>> been made earlier. Delayed diagnosis of cancer is by far the leading entity
>> in this category. A major problem in this regard is that there are very few
>> good guidelines on making a timely diagnosis, and many illnesses aren’t
>> suspected until symptoms persist, or worsen.
>>
>>
>> *Robert J. Latino, CEO*
>> Reliability Center, Inc.
>> 1.800.457.0645 <(800)%20457-0645>
>> blatino at reliability.com
>> www.reliability.com
>> <image001.jpg>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/958495?trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Acompany%2CclickedEntityId%3A958495%2Cidx%3A1-1-1%2CtarId%3A1464096807851%2Ctas%3Areliability%20center%2C%20inc.>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
>> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBE
>> D1=IMPROVEDX&A=1 or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST
>> .IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>>
>> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in
> Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <IMPROVEDX at list.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
> <IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at list.improvediagnosis.org>
>
>
>
> 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@
> LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> 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/20170205/56aec2dd/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list