Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb;21(2):93-100.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000304. Epub 2011 Oct 13.

Electronic health record-based surveillance of diagnostic errors in primary care

Affiliations

Electronic health record-based surveillance of diagnostic errors in primary care

Hardeep Singh et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic errors in primary care are harmful but difficult to detect. The authors tested an electronic health record (EHR)-based method to detect diagnostic errors in routine primary care practice.

Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study of primary care visit records 'triggered' through electronic queries for possible evidence of diagnostic errors: Trigger 1: A primary care index visit followed by unplanned hospitalisation within 14 days and Trigger 2: A primary care index visit followed by ≥1 unscheduled visit(s) within 14 days. Control visits met neither criterion. Electronic trigger queries were applied to EHR repositories at two large healthcare systems between 1 October 2006 and 30 September 2007. Blinded physician-reviewers independently determined presence or absence of diagnostic errors in selected triggered and control visits. An error was defined as a missed opportunity to make or pursue the correct diagnosis when adequate data were available at the index visit. Disagreements were resolved by an independent third reviewer.

Results: Queries were applied to 212 165 visits. On record review, the authors found diagnostic errors in 141 of 674 Trigger 1-positive records (positive predictive value (PPV)=20.9%, 95% CI 17.9% to 24.0%) and 36 of 669 Trigger 2-positive records (PPV=5.4%, 95% CI 3.7% to 7.1%). The control PPV of 2.1% (95% CI 0.1% to 3.3%) was significantly lower than that of both triggers (p≤0.002). Inter-reviewer reliability was modest, though higher than in comparable previous studies (к=0.37 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.44)).

Conclusions: While physician agreement on diagnostic error remains low, an EHR-facilitated surveillance methodology could be useful for gaining insight into the origin of these errors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None; All authors declare that the answer to the questions on your competing interest form [http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/291/DC1] are all No and therefore have nothing to declare

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study flowchart
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of Errors per Day post-Index Visit in the Triggered Subset

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gandhi TK, Lee TH. Patient Safety beyond the Hospital. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010 Sep 8;363(11):1001–3. - PubMed
    1. Phillips R, Jr, Bartholomew LA, Dovey SM, Fryer GE, Jr, Miyoshi TJ, Green LA. Learning from malpractice claims about negligent, adverse events in primary care in the United States. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Apr;13(2):121–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bhasale A. The wrong diagnosis: identifying causes of potentially adverse events in general practice using incident monitoring. Fam Pract. 1998 Aug;15(4):308–18. - PubMed
    1. Elder NC, Dovey SM. Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: a synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract. 2002 Nov;51(11):927–32. - PubMed
    1. Woods DM, Thomas EJ, Holl JL, Weiss KB, Brennan TA. Ambulatory care adverse events and preventable adverse events leading to a hospital admission. Quality and Safety in Healthcare. 2007 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types