The frequency of missed test results and associated treatment delays in a highly computerized health system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background:</p> <p>Diagnostic errors associated with the failure to follow up on abnormal diagnostic studies ("missed results") are a potential cause of treatment delay and a threat to patient safety. Few data exist concerning the frequency of missed results and associated treatment delays within the Veterans Health Administration (VA).</p> <p>Objective:</p> <p>The primary objective of the current study was to assess the frequency of missed results and resulting treatment delays encountered by primary care providers in VA clinics.</p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>An anonymous on-line survey of primary care providers was conducted as part of the health systems ongoing quality improvement programs. We collected information from providers concerning their clinical effort (e.g., number of clinic sessions, number of patient visits per session), number of patients with missed abnormal test results, and the number and types of treatment delays providers encountered during the two week period prior to administration of our survey.</p> <p>Results:</p> <p>The survey was completed by 106 out of 198 providers (54 percent response rate). Respondents saw and average of 86 patients per 2 week period. Providers encountered 64 patients with missed results during the two week period leading up to the study and 52 patients with treatment delays. The most common missed results included imaging studies (29 percent), clinical laboratory (22 percent), anatomic pathology (9 percent), and other (40 percent). The most common diagnostic delays were cancer (34 percent), endocrine problems (26 percent), cardiac problems (16 percent), and others (24 percent).</p> <p>Conclusion:</p> <p>Missed results leading to clinically important treatment delays are an important and likely underappreciated source of diagnostic error.</p

Considering Usual Medical Care in Clinical Trial Design

Liza Dawson and colleagues discuss the scientific and ethical issues associated with choosing clinical trial designs when there is no consensus on what constitutes usual care

Patient- and system-related barriers for the earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A cohort of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients represents an opportunity to study missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Primary objective: To study the epidemiology of diagnostic delays and failures to offer/complete CRC screening. Secondary objective: To identify system- and patient-related factors that may contribute to diagnostic delays or failures to offer/complete CRC screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Setting: Rural Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare system. Participants: CRC cases diagnosed within the VA between 1/1/2000 and 3/1/2007. Data sources: progress notes, orders, and pathology, laboratory, and imaging results obtained between 1/1/1995 and 12/31/2007. Completed CRC screening was defined as a fecal occult blood test or flexible sigmoidoscopy (both within five years), or colonoscopy (within 10 years); delayed diagnosis was defined as a gap of more than six months between an abnormal test result and evidence of clinician response. A summary abstract of the antecedent clinical care for each patient was created by a certified gastroenterologist (GI), who jointly reviewed and coded the abstracts with a general internist (TW).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study population consisted of 150 CRC cases that met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69.04 (range 35-91); 99 (66%) were diagnosed due to symptoms; 61 cases (46%) had delays associated with system factors; of them, 57 (38% of the total) had delayed responses to abnormal findings. Fifteen of the cases (10%) had prompt symptom evaluations but received no CRC screening; no patient factors were identified as potentially contributing to the failure to screen/offer to screen. In total, 97 (65%) of the cases had missed opportunities for early diagnosis and 57 (38%) had patient factors that likely contributed to the diagnostic delay or apparent failure to screen/offer to screen.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Missed opportunities for earlier CRC diagnosis were frequent. Additional studies of clinical data management, focusing on following up abnormal findings, and offering/completing CRC screening, are needed.</p

The Extracranial–Intracranial Bypass Trial: implications for future investigations

The 1985 International Extracranial-Intracranial (EC-IC) Bypass Trial failed to show a surgical benefit of EC-IC bypass in patients with varying degrees of angiographic stenosis. This study was limited by the technology available at the time it was conducted. In the 20 years since, there has been considerable progress in imaging techniques that now enable the identification of a subset of stroke patients with hemodynamic ischemia. In the present study, the authors review the relevant literature and propose a reevaluation of the benefits of the EC-IC bypass procedure using these new imaging techniques. The authors reviewed the admission criteria for the EC-IC Bypass Trial in the light of more recently discovered neurovascular physiology and showed that the imaging criteria used in that trial are not physiologically adequate. A MED-LINE (1985-2007) database search for EC-IC case studies was conducted, and additional studies were identified manually by scrutinizing references from identified manuscripts, major neurosurgical journals and texts, and personal files