Daniel R. Murphy

Electronic health record-based triggers to detect potential delays in cancer diagnosis

Background Delayed diagnosis of cancer can lead to patient harm, and strategies are needed to proactively and efficiently detect such delays in care. We aimed to develop and evaluate ‘trigger’ algorithms to electronically flag medical records of patients with potential delays in prostate and colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Methods We mined retrospective data from two large integrated health systems with comprehensive electronic health records (EHR) to iteratively develop triggers. Data mining algorithms identified all patient records with specific demographics and a lack of appropriate and timely follow-up actions on four diagnostic clues that were newly documented in the EHR: abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA), positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT), iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA), and haematochezia. Triggers subsequently excluded patients not needing follow-up (eg, terminal illness) or who had already received appropriate and timely care. Each of the four final triggers was applied to a test cohort, and chart reviews of randomly selected records identified by the triggers were used to calculate positive predictive values (PPV). Results The PSA trigger was applied to records of 292 587 patients seen between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009, and the CRC triggers were applied to 291 773 patients seen between 1 March 2009 and 28 February 2010. Overall, 1564 trigger positive patients were identified (426 PSA, 355 FOBT, 610 IDA and 173 haematochezia). Record reviews revealed PPVs of 70.2%, 66.7%, 67.5%, and 58.3% for the PSA, FOBT, IDA and haematochezia triggers, respectively. Use of all four triggers at the study sites could detect an estimated 1048 instances of delayed or missed follow-up of abnormal findings annually and 47 high-grade cancers. Conclusions EHR-based triggers can be used successfully to flag patient records lacking follow-up of abnormal clinical findings suspicious for cancer.

Primary care practitioners' views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey

Context Failure to notify patients of test results is common even when electronic health records (EHRs) are used to report results to practitioners. We sought to understand the broad range of social and technical factors that affect test result management in an integrated EHR-based health system. Methods Between June and November 2010, we conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of all primary care practitioners (PCPs) within the Department of Veterans Affairs nationwide. Survey development was guided by a socio-technical model describing multiple inter-related dimensions of EHR use. Findings Of 5001 PCPs invited, 2590 (51.8%) responded. 55.5% believed that the EHRs did not have convenient features for notifying patients of test results. Over a third (37.9%) reported having staff support needed for notifying patients of test results. Many relied on the patients next visit to notify them for normal (46.1%) and abnormal results (20.1%). Only 45.7% reported receiving adequate training on using the EHR notification system and 35.1% reported having an assigned contact for technical assistance with the EHR; most received help from colleagues (60.4%). A majority (85.6%) stayed after hours or came in on weekends to address notifications; less than a third reported receiving protected time (30.1%). PCPs strongly endorsed several new features to improve test result management, including better tracking and visualization of result notifications. Conclusions Despite an advanced EHR, both social and technical challenges exist in ensuring notification of test results to practitioners and patients. Current EHR technology requires significant improvement in order to avoid similar challenges elsewhere.

Electronic Trigger-Based Intervention to Reduce Delays in Diagnostic Evaluation for Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE We tested whether prospective use of electronic health record-based trigger algorithms to identify patients at risk of diagnostic delays could prevent delays in diagnostic evaluation for cancer. METHODS We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial of primary care providers (PCPs) at two sites to test whether triggers that prospectively identify patients with potential delays in diagnostic evaluation for lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer can reduce time to follow-up diagnostic evaluation. Intervention steps included queries of the electronic health record repository for patients with abnormal findings and lack of associated follow-up actions, manual review of triggered records, and communication of this information to PCPs via secure e-mail and, if needed, phone calls to ensure message receipt. We compared times to diagnostic evaluation and proportions of patients followed up between intervention and control cohorts based on final review at 7 months. RESULTS We recruited 72 PCPs (36 in the intervention group and 36 in the control group) and applied the trigger to all patients under their care from April 20, 2011, to July 19, 2012. Of 10,673 patients with abnormal findings, the trigger flagged 1,256 patients (11.8%) as high risk for delayed diagnostic evaluation. Times to diagnostic evaluation were significantly lower in intervention patients compared with control patients flagged by the colorectal trigger (median, 104 v 200 days, respectively; n = 557; P < .001) and prostate trigger (40% received evaluation at 144 v 192 days, respectively; n = 157; P < .001) but not the lung trigger (median, 65 v 93 days, respectively; n = 19; P = .59). More intervention patients than control patients received diagnostic evaluation by final review (73.4% v 52.2%, respectively; relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.58). CONCLUSION Electronic trigger-based interventions seem to be effective in reducing time to diagnostic evaluation of colorectal and prostate cancer as well as improving the proportion of patients who receive follow-up. Similar interventions could improve timeliness of diagnosis of other serious conditions.

Improving the Effectiveness of Electronic Health Record-Based Referral Processes

Electronic health records are increasingly being used to facilitate referral communication in the outpatient setting. However, despite support by technology, referral communication between primary care providers and specialists is often unsatisfactory and is unable to eliminate care delays. This may be in part due to lack of attention to how information and communication technology fits within the social environment of health care. Making electronic referral communication effective requires a multifaceted “socio-technical” approach. Using an 8-dimensional socio-technical model for health information technology as a framework, we describe ten recommendations that represent good clinical practices to design, develop, implement, improve, and monitor electronic referral communication in the outpatient setting. These recommendations were developed on the basis of our previous work, current literature, sound clinical practice, and a systems-based approach to understanding and implementing health information technology solutions. Recommendations are relevant to system designers, practicing clinicians, and other stakeholders considering use of electronic health records to support referral communication.

The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records

The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records With wider use of electronic health records (EHRs), physicians increasingly receive notifications via EHR-based inboxes (eg, Epic’s In-Basket and General Electric Centricity’s Documents). Examples of types of notifications include test results, responses to referrals, requests for medication refills, and messages from physicians and other healthcareprofessionals.1,2 PreviousworkwithintheDepartment of Veterans Affairs found that health care professionals receive large quantities of EHR-based notifications, making it harder to discern important vs irrelevant information and increasing their risk of overlooking abnormal test results.3-6 Information overload is of emerging concern because new types of notifications and “FYI” (for your information) messages can be easily created in the EHR (vs in a paper-based system). Furthermore, the additional workload to read and process these messages remains uncompensated in an environment of reduced reimbursements for office-based care.1,2,4 Conversely, EHRs make it easier to measure the amount of information received. We quantified the notifications that physicians received via inboxes of commercial EHRs to estimate their burden.

Graphical display of diagnostic test results in electronic health Records: a comparison of 8 systems

Accurate display and interpretation of clinical laboratory test results is essential for safe and effective diagnosis and treatment. In an attempt to ascertain how well current electronic health records (EHRs) facilitated these processes, we evaluated the graphical displays of laboratory test results in eight EHRs using objective criteria for optimal graphs based on literature and expert opinion. None of the EHRs met all 11 criteria; the magnitude of deficiency ranged from one EHR meeting 10 of 11 criteria to three EHRs meeting only 5 of 11 criteria. One criterion (i.e., the EHR has a graph with y-axis labels that display both the name of the measured variable and the units of measure) was absent from all EHRs. One EHR system graphed results in reverse chronological order. One EHR system plotted data collected at unequally-spaced points in time using equally-spaced data points, which had the effect of erroneously depicting the visual slope perception between data points. This deficiency could have a significant, negative impact on patient safety. Only two EHR systems allowed users to see, hover-over, or click on a data point to see the precise values of the x–y coordinates. Our study suggests that many current EHR-generated graphs do not meet evidence-based criteria aimed at improving laboratory data comprehension.

Communication breakdowns and diagnostic errors: a radiology perspective

Abstract Timely and accurate communication is essential to safe and effective health care. Despite increased awareness over the past decade of the frequency of medical errors and greater efforts directed towards improving patient safety, patient harm due to communication breakdowns remains a significant problem. Communication problems related to diagnostic testing may account for nearly half of all errors made by typical primary care physicians in their medical practices. This article provides an overview of communication breakdowns in the context of radiology related diagnostic errors. In radiology, communication breakdowns between radiologists, referring clinicians, and patients can lead to failure of critical information to be relayed, resulting in delayed or missed diagnosis. New technologies, such electronic health records (EHRs), contribute to the increasing complexity of communication in health care, but if used correctly, they can provide several benefits to safe and effective communication. To address the complexity of communication breakdowns, a multifaceted sociotechnical approach is needed to address both technical and non-technical aspects of health care delivery. The article also provides some future directions in reducing communication breakdowns related to diagnostic testing, including proactive risk assessment of communication practices using recently released SAFER self-assessment guides.

Resilient actions in the diagnostic process and system performance

Objectives Systemic issues can adversely affect the diagnostic process. Many system-related barriers can be masked by ‘resilient’ actions of frontline providers (ie, actions supporting the safe delivery of care in the presence of pressures that the system cannot readily adapt to). We explored system barriers and resilient actions of primary care providers (PCPs) in the diagnostic evaluation of cancer. Methods We conducted a secondary data analysis of interviews of PCPs involved in diagnostic evaluation of 29 lung and colorectal cancer cases. Cases covered a range of diagnostic timeliness and were analysed to identify barriers for rapid diagnostic evaluation, and PCPs’ actions involving elements of resilience addressing those barriers. We rated these actions according to whether they were usual or extraordinary for typical PCP work. Results Resilient actions and associated barriers were found in 59% of the cases, in all ranges of timeliness, with 40% involving actions rated as beyond typical. Most of the barriers were related to access to specialty services and coordination with patients. Many of the resilient actions involved using additional communication channels to solicit cooperation from other participants in the diagnostic process. Discussion Diagnostic evaluation of cancer involves several resilient actions by PCPs targeted at system deficiencies. PCPs’ actions can sometimes mitigate system barriers to diagnosis, and thereby impact the sensitivity of ‘downstream’ measures (eg, delays) in detecting barriers. While resilient actions might enable providers to mitigate system deficiencies in the short run, they can be resource intensive and potentially unsustainable. They complement, rather than substitute for, structural remedies to improve system performance. Measures to detect and fix system performance issues targeted by these resilient actions could facilitate diagnostic safety.

Variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction alerts across institutions and electronic health records.

Objective: The United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology sponsored the development of a “high-priority” list of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) to be used for clinical decision support. We assessed current adoption of this list and current alerting practice for these DDIs with regard to alert implementation (presence or absence of an alert) and display (alert appearance as interruptive or passive). Materials and methods: We conducted evaluations of electronic health records (EHRs) at a convenience sample of health care organizations across the United States using a standardized testing protocol with simulated orders. Results: Evaluations of 19 systems were conducted at 13 sites using 14 different EHRs. Across systems, 69% of the high-priority DDI pairs produced alerts. Implementation and display of the DDI alerts tested varied between systems, even when the same EHR vendor was used. Across the drug pairs evaluated, implementation and display of DDI alerts differed, ranging from 27% (4/15) to 93% (14/15) implementation. Discussion: Currently, there is no standard of care covering which DDI alerts to implement or how to display them to providers. Opportunities to improve DDI alerting include using differential displays based on DDI severity, establishing improved lists of clinically significant DDIs, and thoroughly reviewing organizational implementation decisions regarding DDIs. Conclusion: DDI alerting is clinically important but not standardized. There is significant room for improvement and standardization around evidence-based DDIs.

Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum

Abstract Communication problems in diagnostic testing have increased in both number and importance in recent years. The medical and legal impact of failure of communication is dramatic. Over the past decades, the courts have expanded and strengthened the duty imposed on radiologists to timely communicate radiologic abnormalities to referring physicians and perhaps the patients themselves in certain situations. The need to communicate these findings goes beyond strict legal requirements: there is a moral imperative as well. The Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association points out that “Ethical values and legal principles are usually closely related, but ethical obligations typically exceed legal duties.” Thus, from the perspective of the law, radiologists are required to communicate important unexpected findings to referring physicians in a timely fashion, or alternatively to the patients themselves. From a moral perspective, radiologists should want to effect such communications. Practice standards, moral values, and ethical statements from professional medical societies call for full disclosure of medical errors to patients affected by them. Surveys of radiologists and non-radiologic physicians reveal that only few would divulge all aspects of the error to the patient. In order to encourage physicians to disclose errors to patients and assist in protecting them in some manner if malpractice litigation follows, more than 35 states have passed laws that do not allow a physician’s admission of an error and apologetic statements to be revealed in the courtroom. Whether such disclosure increases or decreases the likelihood of a medical malpractice lawsuit is unclear, but ethical and moral considerations enjoin physicians to disclose errors and offer apologies.