Accuracy of Laboratory Data Communication on ICU Daily Rounds Using an Electronic Health Record

Kathryn A Artis, Edward Dyer, Vishnu Mohan, Jeffrey A Gold, Kathryn A Artis, Edward Dyer, Vishnu Mohan, Jeffrey A Gold

Abstract

Objectives: Accurately communicating patient data during daily ICU rounds is critically important since data provide the basis for clinical decision making. Despite its importance, high fidelity data communication during interprofessional ICU rounds is assumed, yet unproven. We created a robust but simple methodology to measure the prevalence of inaccurately communicated (misrepresented) data and to characterize data communication failures by type. We also assessed how commonly the rounding team detected data misrepresentation and whether data communication was impacted by environmental, human, and workflow factors.

Design: Direct observation of verbalized laboratory data during daily ICU rounds compared with data within the electronic health record and on presenters' paper prerounding notes.

Setting: Twenty-six-bed academic medical ICU with a well-established electronic health record.

Subjects: ICU rounds presenter (medical student or resident physician), interprofessional rounding team.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: During 301 observed patient presentations including 4,945 audited laboratory results, presenters used a paper prerounding tool for 94.3% of presentations but tools contained only 78% of available electronic health record laboratory data. Ninty-six percent of patient presentations included at least one laboratory misrepresentation (mean, 6.3 per patient) and 38.9% of all audited laboratory data were inaccurately communicated. Most misrepresentation events were omissions. Only 7.8% of all laboratory misrepresentations were detected.

Conclusion: Despite a structured interprofessional rounding script and a well-established electronic health record, clinician laboratory data retrieval and communication during ICU rounds at our institution was poor, prone to omissions and inaccuracies, yet largely unrecognized by the rounding team. This highlights an important patient safety issue that is likely widely prevalent, yet underrecognized.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Artis disclosed other support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Her institution received funding from the AHRQ. Dr. Mohan’s institution received funding from the AHRQ. Dr. Gold’s institution received funding from the AHRQ. Dr. Dyer has disclosed that he does not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A, Types and frequencies of laboratory misrepresentation events. Observation of 301 patient rounds presentations and 4,549 laboratory data points yielded 1,886 inaccurately communicated laboratory test results which were further classified by type of misrepresentation. Most misrepresentation events were omissions. B, Frequency ICU team caught laboratory misrepresentation events varied by type of misrepresentation. Overall frequency of detection of laboratory misrepresentation events was low, with the exception of “pending” type misrepresentation events, which were detected at a significantly higher frequency compared with all other misrepresentation types.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Accuracy of laboratory communication on rounds and ICU team detection of misrepresented laboratory data by individual laboratory test. We observed the communication of 4,549 laboratory data points from 26 selected domains on daily ICU rounds. Communication accuracy and detection of misrepresented laboratory data varied by individual laboratory test. alk phos = alkaline phosphatase, ALT = alanine aminotransferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, Bcx = blood culture, BUN = blood urea nitrogen, Cr = creatinine, Hb/Hct = hemoglobin or hematocrit, HCO3 = serum bicarbonate, Phos = phosphate, Plt = platelet count, PT/INR = prothrombin time or international normalized ratio, PTT/hep = partial thromboplastin time or heparin level, ScvO2 = central venous oxygen saturation, t bili = total bilirubin, trop = troponin.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
A, Correlation between frequency a laboratory test was ordered and accurate communication of the laboratory results. Pearson correlation showed more frequently ordered laboratory tests were more often accurately communicated on rounds. B, Correlation between frequency a laboratory test was present on the artifact and accurate communication of the laboratory results. Pearson correlation showed laboratory tests more commonly present on the artifact were more commonly accurately reported on rounds. Alk phos = alkaline phosphatase, ALT = alanine aminotransferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, BUN = blood urea nitrogen, Ca/iCa = calcium or ionized calcium, Cr = creatinine, Hb/Hct = hemoglobin or hematocrit, HCO3 = serum bicarbonate, Phos = phosphate, Plt = platelet count, PT/INR = prothrombin time or international normalized ratio, PTT = partial thromboplastin time or heparin level, ScvO2 = central venous oxygen saturation, T.Bili = total bilirubin.

References

    1. Burger C. Multidisciplinary rounds: A method to improve quality and safety in critically ill patients. Northeast Florida Med. 2007;58:16–19.
    1. Giri J, Ahmed A, Dong Y, et al. Daily intensive care unit rounds: A multidisciplinary perspective. Appl Med Inform. 2013;33:63–73.
    1. Malhotra S, Jordan D, Patel VL. Workflow modeling in critical care: Piecing your own puzzle. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005:480–484.
    1. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.
    1. Zwaan L, Thijs A, Wagner C, et al. Does inappropriate selectivity in information use relate to diagnostic errors and patient harm? The diagnosis of patients with dyspnea. Soc Sci Med. 2013;91:32–38.
    1. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493–1499.
    1. Winters B, Custer J, Galvagno SM, Jr, et al. Diagnostic errors in the intensive care unit: A systematic review of autopsy studies. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:894–902.
    1. Pickering BW, Hurley K, Marsh B. Identification of patient information corruption in the intensive care unit: Using a scoring tool to direct quality improvements in handover. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2905–2912.
    1. Bomba DT, Prakash R. A description of handover processes in an Australian public hospital. Aust Health Rev. 2005;29:68–79.
    1. Venkatesh AK, Curley D, Chang Y, et al. Communication of vital signs at emergency department handoff: Opportunities for improvement. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66:125–130.
    1. Colvin MO, Eisen LA, Gong MN. Improving the patient handoff process in the intensive care unit: Keys to reducing errors and improving outcomes. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;37:96–106.
    1. Manor-Shulman O, Beyene J, Frndova H, et al. Quantifying the volume of documented clinical information in critical illness. J Crit Care. 2008;23:245–250.
    1. Pickering BW, Dong Y, Ahmed A, et al. The implementation of clinician designed, human-centered electronic medical record viewer in the intensive care unit: A pilot step-wedge cluster randomized trial. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84:299–307.
    1. McKenzie MS, Auriemma CL, Olenik J, et al. An observational study of decision making by medical intensivists. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1660–1668.
    1. March CA, Steiger D, Scholl G, et al. Use of simulation to assess electronic health record safety in the intensive care unit: A pilot study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002549.
    1. Wiener S. Ward rounds revisited – the validity of the data base. J Med Ed. 1976;49:351–356.
    1. Grundgeiger T, Sanderson P, MacDougall HG, et al. Interruption management in the intensive care unit: Predicting resumption times and assessing distributed support. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2010;16:317–334.
    1. Powsner SM, Tufte ER. Graphical summary of patient status. Lancet. 1994;344:386–389.
    1. Tange HJ. The paper-based patient record: Is it really so bad? Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1995;48:127–131.
    1. Perez T, Bass EJ, Helms A, et al. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: 2010. Istanbul, Turkey: Kudret Press & Digital Printing Co; 2010. Comparison of patient data in parallel records: The sign-out sheet and the electronic medical record. pp. pp 1884–1888.
    1. Gurses AP, Xiao Y. A systematic review of the literature on multidisciplinary rounds to design information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:267–276.
    1. Van Eaton EG, McDonough K, Lober WB, et al. Safety of using a computerized rounding and sign-out system to reduce resident duty hours. Acad Med. 2010;85:1189–1195.
    1. Black R, Woolman P, Kinsella J. Variation in the transcription of laboratory data in an intensive care unit. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:767–769.
    1. Thompson G, O’Horo JC, Pickering BW, et al. Impact of the electronic medical record on mortality, length of stay, and cost in the hospital and ICU: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1276–1282.
    1. Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1506–1512.
    1. Warden GL, Bagian JP. Health IT and Patient Safety: Builder Safer Systems for Better Care. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press; 2011.
    1. Lowry SZ, Quinn MT, Ramaiah M, et al. NISTIR 7804. Edited by National Institute of Standards and Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce; 2012. Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of Usability of Electronic Health Records. pp. pp 1–108.
    1. Rothschild JM, Landrigan CP, Cronin JW, et al. The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1694–1700.
    1. Lane D, Ferri M, Lemaire J, et al. A systematic review of evidence-informed practices for patient care rounds in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2015–2029.
    1. Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 1999;282:267–270.
    1. Young MP, Gooder VJ, Oltermann MH, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary approach on caring for ventilator-dependent patients. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:15–26.
    1. Kim MM, Barnato AE, Angus DC, et al. The effect of multidisciplinary care teams on intensive care unit mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:369–376.
    1. Ogdie AR, Reilly JB, Pang WG, et al. Seen through their eyes: Residents’ reflections on the cognitive and contextual components of diagnostic errors in medicine. Acad Med. 2012;87:1361–1367.
    1. Halpern SD, Becker D, Curtis JR, et al. Choosing Wisely Taskforce; American Thoracic Society; American Association of Critical-Care Nurses; Society of Critical Care Medicine. An official American Thoracic Society/American Association of Critical-Care Nurses/American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine policy statement: The Choosing Wisely® Top 5 list in Critical Care Medicine. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190:818–826.
    1. Gold JA, Stephenson LE, Gorsuch A, et al. Feasibility of utilizing a commercial eye tracker to assess electronic health record use during patient simulation. Health Informatics J. 2016;22:744–757.
    1. Neuraz A, Guérin C, Payet C, et al. Patient mortality is associated with staff resources and workload in the ICU: A multicenter observational study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1587–1594.
    1. Stephenson LS, Gorsuch A, Hersh WR, et al. Participation in EHR based simulation improves recognition of patient safety issues. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:224.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera