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
. 2020 Jan 28;7(1):27-35.
doi: 10.1515/dx-2019-0032.

Structured case reviews for organizational learning about diagnostic vulnerabilities: initial experiences from two medical centers

Benji K Mathews  1 , Mary Fredrickson  2 , Meghan Sebasky  3 , Gregory Seymann  3 , Sonia Ramamoorthy  4 , Gary Vilke  5 , Christian Sloane  5 , Emily Thorson  6 , Robert El-Kareh  3
Affiliations

Structured case reviews for organizational learning about diagnostic vulnerabilities: initial experiences from two medical centers

Benji K Mathews et al. Diagnosis (Berl). .

Abstract

Background An organization's ability to identify and learn from opportunities for improvement (OFI) is key to increasing diagnostic safety. Many lack effective processes required to capitalize on these learning opportunities. We describe two parallel attempts at creating such a process and identifying generalizable lessons and learn from them. Methods Triggered case review programs were created independently at two organizations, Site 1 (Regions Hospital, HealthPartners, Saint Paul, MN, USA) and site 2 (University of California, San Diego). Both used a five-step process to create the review system and provide feedback: (1) identify trigger criteria; (2) establish a review panel; (3) develop a system to conduct reviews; (4) perform reviews; and (5) provide feedback. Results Site 1 identified 112 OFI in 184 case reviews (61%), with 66 (59%) provider OFI and 46 (41%) system OFI. Site 2 focused mainly on systems OFI identifying 105 OFI in 346 cases (30%). Opportunities at both sites were variable; common themes included test result management and communication across teams in peri-procedural care and with consultants. Of provider-initiated reviews, 67% of cases had an OFI at site 1 and 87% at site 2. Conclusions Lessons learned include the following: (1) peer review of cases provides opportunities to learn and calibrate diagnostic and management decisions at an organizational level; (2) sharing cases in review groups supports a culture of open discussion of OFIs; (3) reviews focused on diagnostic safety identify opportunities that may complement other organization-wide review opportunities.

Keywords: communication; diagnosis; diagnostic decision-making; feedback; patient safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schiff GD, Leape LL. Commentary: how can we make diagnosis safer? Acad Med 2012;87:135–8.
    1. Graber ML, Wachter RM, Cassel CK. Bringing diagnosis into the quality and safety equations. J Am Med Assoc 2012;308:1211–2.
    1. Wachter RM. Why diagnostic errors don’t get any respect – and what can be done about them. Health Aff 2010;29:1605–10.
    1. Smith MD. Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013.
    1. Singh H. Editorial: helping health care organizations to define diagnostic errors as missed opportunities in diagnosis. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2014;40:99–101.

LinkOut - more resources