Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation.

Giardina TD, Vaghani V, Upadhyay DK, Scott TM, Korukonda S, Spitzmueller C, Singh H. Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation. Journal of general internal medicine. 2024 Sep 5.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act enables patients to access their medical records, thus providing a unique opportunity to engage patients in their diagnostic journey. OBJECTIVE: To explore the concordance between patients' self-reported diagnostic concerns and clinician-interpreted information in their electronic health records. DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of a cohort of 467 patients who completed a structured data collection instrument (the Safer Dx Patient) to identify diagnostic concerns while reviewing their clinician's notes. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses on both the tools and the case summaries. Two clinical chart reviewers, blinded to patient-reported diagnostic concerns, independently conducted chart reviews using a different structured instrument (the Revised Safer Dx Instrument) to identify diagnostic concerns and generate case summaries. The primary outcome variable was chart review-identified diagnostic concerns. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was concordant with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. SETTING: Geisinger, a large integrated healthcare organization in rural and semi-urban Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort of adult patients actively using patient portals and identified as "at-risk" for diagnostic concerns using an electronic trigger algorithm based on unexpected visit patterns in a primary care setting. RESULTS: In 467 cohort patients, chart review identified 31 (6.4%) diagnostic concerns, of which only 11 (21.5%) overlapped with 51 patient-reported diagnostic concerns. Content analysis revealed several areas of discordant understanding of the diagnostic process between clinicians and patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinician-identified diagnostic concerns were associated with patients who self-reported "I feel I was incorrectly diagnosed during my visit" (odds ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.3, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians appear to have certain differences in their mental models of what is considered a diagnostic concern. Efforts to integrate patient perspectives and experiences with the diagnostic process can lead to better measurement of diagnostic safety.





Questions about the HSR website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.