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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |