Objectives To test a structured electronic health record (EHR) case review process to identify diagnostic errors (DE) and diagnostic process failures (DPFs) in acute care. Methods We adapted validated tools (Safer Dx, Diagnostic Error Evaluation Research [DEER] Taxonomy) to assess the diagnostic process during the hospital encounter and categorized 13 postulated e-triggers. We created two test cohorts of all preventable cases (n=28) and an equal number of randomly sampled non-preventable cases (n=28) from 365 adult general medicine patients who expired and underwent our institution’s mortality case review process. After excluding patients with a length of stay of more than one month, each case was reviewed by two blinded clinicians trained in our process and by an expert panel. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. We compared the frequency of DE contributing to death in both cohorts, as well as mean DPFs and e-triggers for DE positive and negative cases within each cohort. Results Twenty-seven (96.4%) preventable and 24 (85.7%) non-preventable cases underwent our review process. Inter-rater reliability was moderate between individual reviewers (Cohen’s kappa 0.41) and substantial with the expert panel (Cohen’s kappa 0.74). The frequency of DE contributing to death was significantly higher for the preventable compared to the non-preventable cohort (56% vs. 17%, OR 6.25 [1.68, 23.27], p<0.01). Mean DPFs and e-triggers were significantly and non-significantly higher for DE positive compared to DE negative cases in each cohort, respectively. Conclusions We observed substantial agreement among final consensus and expert panel reviews using our structured EHR case review process. DEs contributing to death associated with DPFs were identified in institutionally designated preventable and non-preventable cases. While e-triggers may be useful for discriminating DE positive from DE negative cases, larger studies are required for validation. Our approach has potential to augment institutional mortality case review processes with respect to DE surveillance.

Objective To determine user and electronic health records (EHR) integration requirements for a scalable remote symptom monitoring intervention for asthma patients and their providers. Methods Guided by the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, we conducted a user-centered design process involving English- and Spanish-speaking patients and providers affiliated with an academic medical center. We conducted a secondary analysis of interview transcripts from our prior study, new design sessions with patients and primary care providers (PCPs), and a survey of PCPs. We determined EHR integration requirements as part of the asthma app design and development process. Results Analysis of 26 transcripts (21 patients, 5 providers) from the prior study, 21 new design sessions (15 patients, 6 providers), and survey responses from 55 PCPs (71% of 78) identified requirements. Patient-facing requirements included: 1- or 5-item symptom questionnaires each week, depending on asthma control; option to request a callback; ability to enter notes, triggers, and peak flows; and tips pushed via the app prior to a clinic visit. PCP-facing requirements included a clinician-facing dashboard accessible from the EHR and an EHR inbox message preceding the visit. PCP preferences diverged regarding graphical presentations of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Nurse-facing requirements included callback requests sent as an EHR inbox message. Requirements were consistent for English- and Spanish-speaking patients. EHR integration required use of custom application programming interfaces (APIs). Conclusion Using the NASSS framework to guide our user-centered design process, we identified patient and provider requirements for scaling an EHR-integrated remote symptom monitoring intervention in primary care. These requirements met the needs of patients and providers. Additional standards for PRO displays and EHR inbox APIs are needed to facilitate spread.

Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) explore patients’ prognostic awareness, hopes, and worries, and can help establish priorities for their care during and after hospitalization. While identifying patients who benefit from an SIC remains a challenge, this task may be facilitated by use of validated prediction scores available in most commercial electronic health records (EHRs), such as Epic’s Readmission Risk Score (RRS). We identified the RRS on admission for all hospital encounters from October 2018 to August 2019 and measured the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to determine whether RRS could accurately discriminate post discharge 6-month mortality. For encounters with standardized SIC documentation matched in a 1:3 ratio to controls by sex and age (±5 years), we constructed a multivariable, paired logistic regression model and measured the odds of SIC documentation per every 10% absolute increase in RRS. RRS was predictive of 6-month mortality with acceptable discrimination (AUROC .71) and was significantly associated with SIC documentation (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24-1.63). An RRS >28% used to identify patients with post discharge 6-month mortality had a high specificity (89.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (97.0%), but low sensitivity (25.2%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (7.9%). RRS may serve as a practical EHR-based screen to exclude patients not requiring an SIC, thereby leaving a smaller cohort to be further evaluated for SIC needs using other validated tools and clinical assessment.

No abstract