[No SPF Record] Re: [IMPROVEDX] Transfers/referrals

Amy Bergau amy at XENERGYHEALTH.COM
Wed Jan 10 02:15:54 UTC 2018


I am a huge fan of the mantra "you can't manage what you can't measure."

There are adoption models with varying amount of success that track
progress along a continuum in healthcare.  The HIMSS EMR Adoption Model is
one that has been widely accepted although that scoring model and
methodology couldn't be applied here since the first five stages are an
algorithm run on IT installation data .  However, there are other models
that have been constructed to measure success in other areas, such as
Continuity of Care, Data Analytics, etc. that factor in the more human
component of care.

It's a tall order, but would there be value in the creation of a Diagnostic
Excellence Model- essentially an assessment/survey that encompasses
everything from the most basic elements of diagnostics to the more complex?

It's design and development would involve whiteboarding every aspect of
diagnostic error (cognitive, systemic, process, etc.) and then assess based
on the model. This assessment could be a score, but my vision is less
punitive, and more along the lines of a green/yellow/red for each
diagnostic category.  For example, an IDS may do a great job with closing
the loop with lab communications via MyChart as it contains discreet data
that the patient can "easily" understand, but when it comes to a 5 page
radiology report, this is more complex, even the physicians dont have time
to read through it.

Examples above are very basic, but with the advent of AI and Machine
Learning, can we run something on top of the EMR?

A

Amy M. Bergau
Founder, CEO
amy at xenergyhealth.com
312-965-9573

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Rory Jaffe <rjaffe at chpso.org> wrote:

> We’ll have to agree to disagree on the lumping/splitting of this topic.
>
>
>
> Some PSOs do provide reports on diagnostic error—this tends to be in
> system-specific PSOs (that is, those PSOs that are run by a hospital system
> and that serves only the facilities within that system). This is because
> those organizations tend to have a common EHR platform that the PSO has
> access to, and those PSOs then can do surveillance: “runs” through the EHR
> to pick up certain types of missed/incorrect diagnoses. Unfortunately, the
> lessons learned then tends to remain within the individual system.
>
>
>
> PSOs that receive information through voluntary spontaneous reports
> typically have not yet developed specific taxonomies suitable to the area.
> Someone needs to do this. And I’d distinguish between a taxonomy of medical
> error and a practical taxonomy for information gathering through voluntary
> reports, as the latter requires a parsimonious approach to avoid
> overwhelming the reporter and inhibiting reporting. For spontaneous
> reporting, a taxonomy is only as good as the reporters’ use of it—if they
> don’t understand it, answer the questions incorrectly, or don’t answer the
> questions at all, the taxonomy is worthless for analysis.
>
>
>
> Laboratory medicine and radiology are areas where I believe PSOs are doing
> significant specialized work on errors. They tend to have specialized
> taxonomies for their respective specialties—taxonomies that would not work
> for other providers. For example, Itri, J. N., & Krishnaraj, A. (2012). Do
> we need a National incident reporting system for medical imaging? Journal
> of the American College of Radiology, 9(5), 329–335.
> http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.11.015.
>
>
>
> *From:* Powell, Melanie A [mailto:Melanie.A.Powell at medstar.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 09, 2018 4:35 PM
> *To:* Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine <IMPROVEDX at LIST.
> IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>; Rory Jaffe <rjaffe at chpso.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [IMPROVEDX] [No SPF Record] Re: [IMPROVEDX]
> Transfers/referrals
>
>
>
> Rory,
>
>
>
> Love your post and agree with all of it. I would push back slightly on
> your previous post regarding the significance of lumping together all
> diagnostic error in medicine. I do think there's something to be achieved,
> as Amy Bergau mentioned, in understanding the "why" behind diagnostic
> error. Perhaps the cognitive processes are different in evaluating 5 days
> of nasal congestion vs. acute onset chest pain, but I think probably not.
> As you and Bob stated, looking back at historical data and case studies on
> proven wrong diagnoses can be enormously helpful and something that health
> systems, hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians should commit to
> doing on a regular basis.
>
>
>
> Do any PSOs provide reports on diagnostic error as part of
> their updates/feedback to participating entities?
>
>
>
> Melanie Powell, MD/MPH
>
> Fellow, MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety
>
> (c) 410-688-5216 <(410)%20688-5216>
>
> Website: http://www.medstariqs.org/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.medstariqs.org_&d=DwMF-g&c=hx0HUg_nG-xRkKlwWZeJFCbvzzw0Ym5DwdL_1FKbReI&r=ykcs2wU25yxj5BckI49bSg&m=ZBuRFRAtJFGw864KrlIC64yBrCsgvKU5XuIMi2GvWAk&s=JQDvMpMXWLuNUoQl7v3i38NI3FTu5J7p5VDIZUoXmVM&e=>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rory Jaffe [rjaffe at CHPSO.ORG]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 09, 2018 6:41 PM
> *To:* IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [IMPROVEDX] [No SPF Record] Re: [IMPROVEDX]
> Transfers/referrals
>
> First a note—I spent the last year working part time for AHRQ to evaluate
> the patient safety organization program and also assess what AHRQ should do
> to better understand and collect information on diagnostic error—this
> position was stimulated by some of the recommendations from the NAM report
> on diagnostic error. However, these are my opinions only and do not
> represent the opinion of AHRQ or HHS.
>
>
>
> Like with many other areas of interest in patient safety, no one
> information collection technique will cover the whole range of issues.
> Further, it is very difficult (nearly impossible) to get “denominators”
> with many of the collection techniques, particularly with what are termed
> “spontaneous reporting systems” (e.g., event reports). And our information
> collection needs will vary depending upon the type of error.
>
>
>
> We really need are some population-level ideas of the importance of each
> major type of diagnostic issue, a “diagnosis” as to the factors involved in
> the issue, and workable plans to mitigate the issue.
>
>
>
> Some ideas on collecting more information about the current state of
> diagnosis/misdiagnosis:
>
> 1. We need spontaneous reporting from physicians and other diagnosticians
> because this is the only way we can peek into their brains—this will
> require some amount of education (how can a person meaningfully report on
> something he or she doesn’t understand?), and some very simple data
> collection formats since there will be little appetite to fill out complex
> forms. In ambulatory care, there isn’t an established tradition of
> reporting errors and issues, unlike in hospitals. Even worse, physicians
> have a poor record of reporting issues even in hospitals. This probably
> should be focused on specific physician groups that are interested in
> participating—there’s going to have to be buy-in, a commitment to think
> about these issues, and a willingness to file a report whenever the
> physician is “surprised” by a diagnosis or recognizes an unnecessary delay
> in diagnosis. There are also significant legal barriers to this type of
> reporting as in most states medical groups do not have access to the legal
> protections that hospitals do when it comes to recording and analyzing
> reports of issues.
>
> 2. We need spontaneous reporting by patients—there’s some evidence that
> they may be the only source of a large portion of the misdiagnosis and
> delayed diagnosis issues. For example, if a patient bounces between two
> providers, the only one with knowledge as to the conflict between the two
> providers may be the patient him/herself.
>
> 3. We need more work on the simpler to detect stuff (e.g., lab/radiology
> misreads). By the way, there are initiatives already under way in some
> areas of radiology and laboratory medicine to do just that.
>
> 4. We need some more sophisticated and imaginative data mining for those
> issues that are amenable to that technique. For example, there’s been some
> work on diagnostic process where an organization looks at *correct
> diagnoses* (e.g., dissecting aneurysm) and then checks as to whether the
> correct diagnostic process was followed. This will bring out some latent
> errors quite effectively, even though it is not looking at mis-diagnosis
> per se. Cancer cases are also good for data mining, as cancer is one of
> those things that usually eventually gets diagnosed if it is a major cause
> of morbidity (as opposed to, for example, cardiac disease, which could
> result in a death without a prior diagnosis)—this is even easier in those
> states with cancer registries.
>
>
>
> We also need to revisit the definition of misdiagnosis—I’m sorry, I don’t
> like the NAM one too much. For example, it doesn’t address overdiagnosis at
> all (correct diagnosis, but meaningless or even harmful for the patient who
> receives it). And it focuses too much on the diagnosis rather than the
> treatment. Is settling on a specific diagnosis when faced with a problem as
> important as identifying the correct way forward (in terms of further
> evaluation and treatment plans)? We deal with lots of uncertainty, and it
> is how we navigate this, rather than whether we end up with nice labels for
> the patient, that seems the most important to me. And in terms of
> patient-centeredness, it is what the patient goes through (medical
> treatments, procedures, tests, etc.) that’s most important, not what labels
> the patient gets.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Amy Bergau [mailto:amy at xenergyhealth.com <amy at xenergyhealth.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2018 7:57 PM
> *To:* Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine <IMPROVEDX at list.
> improvediagnosis.org>; Rory Jaffe <rjaffe at chpso.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [IMPROVEDX] [No SPF Record] Re: [IMPROVEDX]
> Transfers/referrals
>
>
>
> What technology solution could be developed to document the cognitive
> process? What we are learning is that the "why" and how clinicians arrive
> at a diagnosis is an important and very integral component of diagnosis and
> the learning medicine continuum.
>
>
> Amy M. Bergau
>
> Founder, CEO
>
> amy at xenergyhealth.com
>
> 312-965-9573 <(312)%20965-9573>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Rory Jaffe <rjaffe at chpso.org> wrote:
>
> And even then, methods of getting counts of diagnostic errors are very
> insensitive, unless your definition is very limited.
>
>
>
> You can get pieces of the answer with some reasonable accuracy—e.g.,
> pathology mis-reads, diagnostic errors resulting in malpractice suits. But
> getting the big picture? No, don’t think we have any idea. For example, see
> Graber, M. L. (2013). The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ
> Quality & Safety, 22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), ii21-ii27.
> http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001615
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doi.org_10.1136_bmjqs-2D2012-2D001615&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=iIa5NiqJeIPnaQFh9GuNYz3jFiqCglNZscwsvdBLEkU&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Clinicians in general do a poor job of documenting their cognitive work,
> so unless we actively solicit this information from physicians and their
> patients we’re not going to get anywhere close to an answer.
>
>
>
> And then there’s the issue of what diagnostic errors do we care about
> counting? Misdiagnosing a viral URI as a bacterial infection is more a
> population health issue than an individual patient safety issue, but each
> time that happens we’re dealing with a diagnostic error. The implications
> of this type of error and the types of interventions needed are much
> different from, say, missed diagnoses of dissecting aneurysms in the ED.
>
>
>
> With such a heterogeneous problem as diagnostic error, I’m not sure that
> counting and lumping all errors together to say, for example, “1/3 of all
> errors are diagnostic” is of any use.
>
>
>
> *From:* Harry Burke [mailto:harry.burke at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2018 3:02 PM
> *To:* Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine <IMPROVEDX at LIST.
> IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>; Rory Jaffe <rjaffe at chpso.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [IMPROVEDX] [No SPF Record] Re: [IMPROVEDX]
> Transfers/referrals
>
>
>
> The incidence depends on how you define diagnostic errors and how you
> detect diagnostic errors.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Rory Jaffe <rjaffe at CHPSO.ORG> wrote:
>
> There are no reliable estimates of the incidence of diagnostic errors.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* robert bell [mailto:0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.
> IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> <0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 07, 2018 10:58 AM
> *To:* IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> *Subject:* [No SPF Record] Re: [IMPROVEDX] Transfers/referrals
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> It is said that of the errors in medicine two thirds are standard errors
> while one third are diagnostic (does anyone know where those figures came
> from?).
>
>
>
> It this is true then the next question would seem to be what is the impact
> of standard errors (from computers, hand offs, medication, laboratory and
> radiology errors, etc., etc.) on diagnostic errors. Is it a  small of large
> figure? Are there  any estimates?
>
>
>
> Then the question arises should we as a community/organization be dealing
> in someway with *all* errors and not solely diagnostic.
>
>
>
> In fact, if the standard errors significantly effect diagnoses, will we be
> able to easily prove that any diagnostic approach is worthwhile?
>
>
>
> Will historical analyses work? How would you compensate for standard error
> rates being different in different hospitals and HC facilities.
>
>
>
> Do we need to know the level of effect of standard errors on diagnostic
> errors in different facilities?
>
>
>
> Robert Bell, M.D.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?
> SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.improvediagnosis.org_scripts_wa-2DIMPDIAG.exe-3FSUBED1-3DIMPROVEDX-26A-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=yN8ceOSI9-pp0dylOEDGOWIpfhLv4mj6phCQGxGgr1Q&e=>
>
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.improvediagnosis.org_scripts_wa-2DIMPDIAG.exe-3FINDEX&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=QtefJCpgfro4UwVMd7GYRiu1W8_NAkZJpXEy26ok2ZQ&e=>
>
>
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in
> Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.improvediagnosis.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=BeBlqfa4FgqK6NkBtXYZKhSZkihyobFVaqDhKM7HPZA&e=>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?
> SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.improvediagnosis.org_scripts_wa-2DIMPDIAG.exe-3FSUBED1-3DIMPROVEDX-26A-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=yN8ceOSI9-pp0dylOEDGOWIpfhLv4mj6phCQGxGgr1Q&e=>
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.improvediagnosis.org_scripts_wa-2DIMPDIAG.exe-3FINDEX&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=QtefJCpgfro4UwVMd7GYRiu1W8_NAkZJpXEy26ok2ZQ&e=>
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in
> Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.improvediagnosis.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=BeBlqfa4FgqK6NkBtXYZKhSZkihyobFVaqDhKM7HPZA&e=>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?
> SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.improvediagnosis.org_scripts_wa-2DIMPDIAG.exe-3FSUBED1-3DIMPROVEDX-26A-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=yN8ceOSI9-pp0dylOEDGOWIpfhLv4mj6phCQGxGgr1Q&e=>
>
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.improvediagnosis.org_scripts_wa-2DIMPDIAG.exe-3FINDEX&d=DwQGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=QtefJCpgfro4UwVMd7GYRiu1W8_NAkZJpXEy26ok2ZQ&e=>
>
>
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in
> Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.improvediagnosis.org_&d=DwQGaQ&c=RvBXVp2Kc-itN3g6r3sN0QK_zL4whPpndVxj8-bJ04M&r=C42EOoK0usvan6uLAPOvpUNb_Jn8YFsH_X3utGQE6zc&m=sQZLbYf6nX8H4nNsGL_7Of7-lFIHdI2Es65RPoT5LII&s=BeBlqfa4FgqK6NkBtXYZKhSZkihyobFVaqDhKM7HPZA&e=>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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/20180109/d0fd6973/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list