Literature DB >> 11874191

Outpatient diagnostic errors: unrecognized hyperglycemia.

David Edelman1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: To estimate the prevalence of unrecognized diabetes in a large managed care organization (MCO).
DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. PATIENTS AND
SETTING: All patients over age 30 enrolled in the (staff-model) MCO of Duke University Medical Center between April 1996 and March 1999. DATA SOURCES: Merged database of MCO administrative, billing, and laboratory files and selected medical records. CASE DEFINITIONS: We identified all patients with abnormal test results suggestive of diabetes (i.e., hemoglobin [Hb] A1c > or = 7.0% or plasma glucose > or = 200 mg/dL) on one or more occasions. Patients were considered to have recognized diabetes if they had an ICD-9 diagnostic code for diabetes in the administrative database or a diagnosis mentioned in their medical record (on the basis of medical record review of a random sample of 30% of patients with abnormal test results and no ICD-9 code). Patients with unrecognized diabetes did not have an ICD-9 code or a medical record diagnosis.
RESULTS: 1426 patients had laboratory tests suggestive of diabetes. Of these patients, 1122 (79%) had an ICD-9 diagnostic code for diabetes in the administrative database. Forty-six of the remaining 304 patients without ICD-9 codes had mention of diabetes on medical record review; thus, we estimate that as many as 258 (18% of patients with laboratory tests suggestive of diabetes) had unrecognized diabetes. When this estimate was restricted to findings that are most suggestive of diabetes (high HbA1c or two high plasma glucose tests), 124 (9%) patients had unrecognized diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients in an MCO have laboratory values suggestive of diabetes with no evidence that their providers have recognized this condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11874191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eff Clin Pract        ISSN: 1099-8128


  13 in total

Review 1.  Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joanne L Callen; Johanna I Westbrook; Andrew Georgiou; Julie Li
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  How Do Experienced Physicians Access and Evaluate Laboratory Test Results for the Chronic Patient? A Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  Torbjørn Torsvik; Børge Lillebo; Morten Hertzum
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Eric J Thomas; Dean F Sittig; Lindsey Wilson; Donna Espadas; Myrna M Khan; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Random blood glucose: a robust risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Michael E Bowen; Lei Xuan; Ildiko Lingvay; Ethan A Halm
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 5.958

5.  Prevalence of elevated hemoglobin A1c among patients admitted to the hospital without a diagnosis of diabetes.

Authors:  Deborah J Wexler; David M Nathan; Richard W Grant; Susan Regan; Allison L Van Leuvan; Enrico Cagliero
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 5.958

6.  Duplicate patient records--implication for missed laboratory results.

Authors:  Erel Joffe; Charles F Bearden; Michael J Byrne; Elmer V Bernstam
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

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

Authors:  Terry L Wahls; Ika Peleg
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  Presentation of clinical laboratory results: an experimental comparison of four visualization techniques.

Authors:  Torbjørn Torsvik; Børge Lillebo; Gustav Mikkelsen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.497

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

Authors:  Terry L Wahls; Peter M Cram
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  The challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic error.

Authors:  Laura Zwaan; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2015-03-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.