Inviting patients to identify diagnostic concerns through structured evaluation of their online visit notes

Traber D Giardina, Debra T Choi, Divvy K Upadhyay, Saritha Korukonda, Taylor M Scott, Christiane Spitzmueller, Conrad Schuerch, Dennis Torretti, Hardeep Singh, Traber D Giardina, Debra T Choi, Divvy K Upadhyay, Saritha Korukonda, Taylor M Scott, Christiane Spitzmueller, Conrad Schuerch, Dennis Torretti, Hardeep Singh

Abstract

Background: The 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review.

Objective: To test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes.

Methods: In a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables.

Results: Of 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01).

Conclusion: Patients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.

Keywords: OpenNotes; communication; diagnostic errors; patient experience; patient safety.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.

References

    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.
    1. Graber M, Gordon R, Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad Med 2002; 77 (10): 981–92. Accessed August 10, 2020.
    1. McGlynn EA, McDonald KM, Cassel CK. Measurement is essential for improving diagnosis and reducing diagnostic error: a report from the institute of medicine. JAMA 2015; 314 (23): 2501–2.
    1. Singh H, Graber ML, Hofer TP. Measures to improve diagnostic safety in clinical practice. J Patient Saf 2019; 15 (4): 311–6.
    1. Bell SK, Delbanco T, Elmore JG, et al. Frequency and types of patient-reported errors in electronic health record ambulatory care notes. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (6): e205867.
    1. Giardina TD, Haskell H, Menon S, et al. Learning from patients’ experiences related to diagnostic errors is essential for progress in patient safety. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37 (11): 1821–7.
    1. Giardina TD, Korukonda S, Shahid U, et al. Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf 2021; 30 (12): 996–1001.
    1. Gallagher TH, Mazor KM. Taking complaints seriously: using the patient safety lens. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24 (6): 352–5.
    1. Mazor KM, Roblin DW, Greene SM, et al. Toward patient-centered cancer care: patient perceptions of problematic events, impact, and response. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (15): 1784–90.
    1. Kinnunen U-M, Saranto K. It is time for self-incident-reporting for patients and their families in every health care organization: a literature review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2013; 192: 92–6.
    1. Haldar S, Mishra SR, Kim Y, Hartzler A, Pollack AH, Pratt W. Use and impact of an online community for hospital patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (4): 549–57.
    1. Willis MA, Hein LB, Hu Z, et al. Feeling better on hemodialysis: user-centered design requirements for promoting patient involvement in the prevention of treatment complications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (8): 1612–31.
    1. Haldar S, Mishra SR, Pollack AH, Pratt W. Informatics opportunities to involve patients in hospital safety: a conceptual model. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (2): 202–11.
    1. ONC’s Cures Act Final Rule. Accessed November 30, 2020.
    1. Dullabh PM, Sondheimer NK, Katsh E, Evans MA. How patients can improve the accuracy of their medical records. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2014; 2 (3): 1080.
    1. Bell SK, Gerard M, Fossa A, et al. A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26 (4): 312–22.
    1. DesRoches CM, Bell SK, Dong Z, et al. Patients managing medications and reading their visit notes: a survey of OpenNotes participants. Ann Intern Med 2019; 171 (1): 69–71.
    1. Wright E, Darer J, Tang X, et al. Sharing physician notes through an electronic portal is associated with improved medication adherence: quasi-experimental study. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (10): e226.
    1. Kayastha N, Pollak KI, LeBlanc TW. Open oncology notes: a qualitative study of oncology patients’ experiences reading their cancer care notes. J Oncol Pract 2018; 14 (4): e251–8.
    1. Singh H, Giardina TD, Forjuoh SN, et al. Electronic health record-based surveillance of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21 (2): 93–100.
    1. Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Sittig DF, Meeks DW, Thomas EJ, Singh H. Application of electronic trigger tools to identify targets for improving diagnostic safety. BMJ Qual Saf 2019; 28 (2): 151–9.
    1. Vaghani V, Wei L, Mushtaq U, Sittig DF, Bradford A, Singh H. Validation of an electronic trigger to measure missed diagnosis of stroke in emergency departments. JAMIA 2021; 28 (10): 2202–11.
    1. Al-Mutairi A, Meyer AND, Thomas EJ, et al. Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to identify diagnostic errors in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31 (6): 602–8.
    1. Davalos MC, Samuels K, Meyer AND, et al. Finding diagnostic errors in children admitted to the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18 (3): 265–71.
    1. Singh H, Sittig DF. Advancing the science of measurement of diagnostic errors in healthcare: the Safer Dx framework. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24 (2): 103–10.
    1. Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer A, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (6): 418–25.
    1. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The single item literacy screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract 2006; 7 (1): 21.
    1. Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ J Educ Res Pract 2003; 12 (2): 68–82. doi:10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38.
    1. Singh H, Upadhyay DK, Torretti D. Developing health care organizations that pursue learning and exploration of diagnostic excellence: an action plan. Acad Med 2020; 95 (8): 1172–8.
    1. Johnson DR, Creech JC. Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: a simulation study of categorization error. Am Sociol Rev 1983; 48 (3): 398–407.
    1. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010; 15 (5): 625–32.
    1. Sullivan GM, Artino AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ 2013; 5 (4): 541–2.
    1. Zumbo BD, Zimmerman DW. Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Can Psychol Can 1993; 34 (4): 390–400.
    1. Bell SK, Folcarelli P, Fossa A, et al. Tackling ambulatory safety risks through patient engagement: what 10,000 patients and families say about safety-related knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes after reading visit notes. J Patient Saf 2021; 17 (8): e791–9.
    1. Nazi KM, Turvey CL, Klein DM, Hogan TP, Woods SS. VA OpenNotes: exploring the experiences of early patient adopters with access to clinical notes. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (2): 380–9.
    1. Wolff JL, Darer JD, Berger A, et al. Inviting patients and care partners to read doctors’ notes: OpenNotes and shared access to electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (e1): e166–72.
    1. Walker J, Leveille S, Bell S, et al. OpenNotes after 7 years: patient experiences with ongoing access to their clinicians’ outpatient visit notes. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (5): e13876.doi:10.2196/13876
    1. Bell SK, Mejilla R, Anselmo M, et al. When doctors share visit notes with patients: a study of patient and doctor perceptions of documentation errors, safety opportunities and the patient–doctor relationship. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26 (4): 262–70.
    1. Gupta D, Rodeghier M, Lis CG. Patient satisfaction with service quality as a predictor of survival outcomes in breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22 (1): 129–34.
    1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (6): CD000259.
    1. Lane K, Rhodes M, Olson A. Diagnostic reasoning feedback: improving diagnostic reasoning skills and feedback satisfaction through structured peer feedback. MedEdPORTAL 2016; 12. doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10340.
    1. Larson DB, Donnelly LF, Podberesky DJ, Merrow AC, Sharpe RE, Kruskal JB. Peer feedback, learning, and improvement: answering the call of the institute of medicine report on diagnostic error. Radiology 2017; 283 (1): 231–41.
    1. Meyer AND, Upadhyay DK, Collins CA, et al. A program to provide clinicians with feedback on their diagnostic performance in a learning health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2021; 47 (2): 120–6. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.08.014.
    1. Schubart JR, Toran L, Whitehead M, Levi BH, Green MJ. Informed decision making in advance care planning: concordance of patient self-reported diagnosis with physician diagnosis. Support Care Cancer 2013; 21 (2): 637–41.
    1. Khan A, Coffey M, Litterer KP, et al.; the Patient and Family Centered I-PASS Study Group. Families as partners in hospital error and adverse event surveillance. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171 (4): 372–81.
    1. Suzuki R, Yajima N, Sakurai K, et al. Association of patients’ past misdiagnosis experiences with trust in their current physician among Japanese adults [published online ahead of print June 22, 2021]. J Gen Intern Med. 2021; doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06950-y.
    1. Hendren EM, Kumagai AK. A matter of trust. Acad Med 2019; 94 (9): 1270–2.
    1. Phillips‐Salimi CR, Haase JE, Kooken WC. Connectedness in the context of patient–provider relationships: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2012; 68 (1): 230–45.
    1. Birkhäuer J, Gaab J, Kossowsky J, et al. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12 (2): e0170988.
    1. Berger ZD, Brito JP, Ospina NS, et al. Patient centred diagnosis: sharing diagnostic decisions with patients in clinical practice. BMJ 2017; 359: j4218.
    1. Mangus CW, Singh H, Mahajan P. Health Information Technology for Engaging Patients in Diagnostic Decision Making in Emergency Departments. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ Publication No. 20(21)-0040-4-EF. Accessed February 6, 2021.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera