Cargando…

Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care

IMPORTANCE: Diagnostic errors are common and harmful, but difficult to define and measure. Measurement of diagnostic errors often depends on retrospective medical record reviews, frequently resulting in reviewer disagreement. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test the accuracy of an instrument to help detect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al-Mutairi, Aymer, Meyer, Ashley N. D., Thomas, Eric J., Etchegaray, Jason M., Roy, Kevin M., Davalos, Maria Caridad, Sheikh, Shazia, Singh, Hardeep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26902245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3601-x
_version_ 1782432436866514944
author Al-Mutairi, Aymer
Meyer, Ashley N. D.
Thomas, Eric J.
Etchegaray, Jason M.
Roy, Kevin M.
Davalos, Maria Caridad
Sheikh, Shazia
Singh, Hardeep
author_facet Al-Mutairi, Aymer
Meyer, Ashley N. D.
Thomas, Eric J.
Etchegaray, Jason M.
Roy, Kevin M.
Davalos, Maria Caridad
Sheikh, Shazia
Singh, Hardeep
author_sort Al-Mutairi, Aymer
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Diagnostic errors are common and harmful, but difficult to define and measure. Measurement of diagnostic errors often depends on retrospective medical record reviews, frequently resulting in reviewer disagreement. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test the accuracy of an instrument to help detect presence or absence of diagnostic error through record reviews. DESIGN: We gathered questions from several previously used instruments for diagnostic error measurement, then developed and refined our instrument. We tested the accuracy of the instrument against a sample of patient records (n = 389), with and without previously identified diagnostic errors (n = 129 and n = 260, respectively). RESULTS: The final version of our instrument (titled Safer Dx Instrument) consisted of 11 questions assessing diagnostic processes in the patient–provider encounter and a main outcome question to determine diagnostic error. In comparison with the previous sample, the instrument yielded an overall accuracy of 84 %, sensitivity of 71 %, specificity of 90 %, negative predictive value of 86 %, and positive predictive value of 78 %. All 11 items correlated significantly with the instrument’s error outcome question (all p values ≤ 0.01). Using factor analysis, the 11 questions clustered into two domains with high internal consistency (initial diagnostic assessment, and performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests) and a patient factor domain with low internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients 0.93, 0.92, and 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Safer Dx Instrument helps quantify the likelihood of diagnostic error in primary care visits, achieving a high degree of accuracy for measuring their presence or absence. This instrument could be useful to identify high-risk cases for further study and quality improvement. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3601-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4870415
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48704152016-06-06 Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Al-Mutairi, Aymer Meyer, Ashley N. D. Thomas, Eric J. Etchegaray, Jason M. Roy, Kevin M. Davalos, Maria Caridad Sheikh, Shazia Singh, Hardeep J Gen Intern Med Original Research IMPORTANCE: Diagnostic errors are common and harmful, but difficult to define and measure. Measurement of diagnostic errors often depends on retrospective medical record reviews, frequently resulting in reviewer disagreement. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test the accuracy of an instrument to help detect presence or absence of diagnostic error through record reviews. DESIGN: We gathered questions from several previously used instruments for diagnostic error measurement, then developed and refined our instrument. We tested the accuracy of the instrument against a sample of patient records (n = 389), with and without previously identified diagnostic errors (n = 129 and n = 260, respectively). RESULTS: The final version of our instrument (titled Safer Dx Instrument) consisted of 11 questions assessing diagnostic processes in the patient–provider encounter and a main outcome question to determine diagnostic error. In comparison with the previous sample, the instrument yielded an overall accuracy of 84 %, sensitivity of 71 %, specificity of 90 %, negative predictive value of 86 %, and positive predictive value of 78 %. All 11 items correlated significantly with the instrument’s error outcome question (all p values ≤ 0.01). Using factor analysis, the 11 questions clustered into two domains with high internal consistency (initial diagnostic assessment, and performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests) and a patient factor domain with low internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients 0.93, 0.92, and 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Safer Dx Instrument helps quantify the likelihood of diagnostic error in primary care visits, achieving a high degree of accuracy for measuring their presence or absence. This instrument could be useful to identify high-risk cases for further study and quality improvement. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3601-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2016-02-22 2016-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4870415/ /pubmed/26902245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3601-x Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Al-Mutairi, Aymer
Meyer, Ashley N. D.
Thomas, Eric J.
Etchegaray, Jason M.
Roy, Kevin M.
Davalos, Maria Caridad
Sheikh, Shazia
Singh, Hardeep
Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
title Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
title_full Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
title_fullStr Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
title_short Accuracy of the Safer Dx Instrument to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
title_sort accuracy of the safer dx instrument to identify diagnostic errors in primary care
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26902245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3601-x
work_keys_str_mv AT almutairiaymer accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT meyerashleynd accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT thomasericj accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT etchegarayjasonm accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT roykevinm accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT davalosmariacaridad accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT sheikhshazia accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare
AT singhhardeep accuracyofthesaferdxinstrumenttoidentifydiagnosticerrorsinprimarycare