OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of delayed response to an abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of prostate cancer cases diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2005, in a rural Department of Veterans Affairs health care system serving 44,000 veterans across 2 states. Clinician response was defined as a reference to the elevated PSA result in clinical notes, orders for further evaluation, treatment of presumed prostatitis, or a urology visit or referral. Delay was measured as days between an abnormal PSA result and clinician response. RESULTS: We identified 327 men who met inclusion criteria with an abnormal PSA value before prostate cancer diagnosis. At first PSA elevation, median age was 64 years; 94% were younger than 75 years. Of the 327 men, 253 (77.4%) had a timely (< or =30 days) response to an abnormal PSA value; 23 (7.0%) had between 31 and 180 days; 24 (7.3%), between 181 and 360 days; and 27 (8.3%), more than 360 days between an abnormal PSA measurement and clinician response. The delayed group had nearly an additional year's (309 days) lapse before completed urologic consultation and prostate gland biopsy (313 days) as compared with the timely group. The presence of urologic symptoms, abnormal results from rectal examination, higher PSA values, and higher PSA velocity (P<.05) were associated with timely clinician response to an abnormal PSA measurement. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of men with prostate cancer and an antecedent abnormal PSA value, 15.6% had more than 180 days between an abnormal PSA measurement and clinician response. These findings add to the growing literature demonstrating that missed results occur more frequently than is generally appreciated. Improved systems for clinical data management are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of delayed response to an abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of prostate cancer cases diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2005, in a rural Department of Veterans Affairs health care system serving 44,000 veterans across 2 states. Clinician response was defined as a reference to the elevated PSA result in clinical notes, orders for further evaluation, treatment of presumed prostatitis, or a urology visit or referral. Delay was measured as days between an abnormal PSA result and clinician response. RESULTS: We identified 327 men who met inclusion criteria with an abnormal PSA value before prostate cancer diagnosis. At first PSA elevation, median age was 64 years; 94% were younger than 75 years. Of the 327 men, 253 (77.4%) had a timely (< or =30 days) response to an abnormal PSA value; 23 (7.0%) had between 31 and 180 days; 24 (7.3%), between 181 and 360 days; and 27 (8.3%), more than 360 days between an abnormal PSA measurement and clinician response. The delayed group had nearly an additional year's (309 days) lapse before completed urologic consultation and prostate gland biopsy (313 days) as compared with the timely group. The presence of urologic symptoms, abnormal results from rectal examination, higher PSA values, and higher PSA velocity (P<.05) were associated with timely clinician response to an abnormal PSA measurement. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of men with prostate cancer and an antecedent abnormal PSA value, 15.6% had more than 180 days between an abnormal PSA measurement and clinician response. These findings add to the growing literature demonstrating that missed results occur more frequently than is generally appreciated. Improved systems for clinical data management are needed.
Authors: Jon C Tilburt; Katherine M James; Kathryn Koller; Anne P Lanier; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Ann M Nicometo; Wesley O Petersen Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2013
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
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Richard M Hoffman; Ruth Etzioni; Van Anh T Ginger; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Louis Wu; Eric J Thomas; Samuel N Forjuoh; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jon C Tilburt; Kathryn Koller; James J Tiesinga; Robin T Wilson; Anne C Trinh; Kristin Hill; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Wesley O Petersen Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2013-11
Authors: Melissa A Simon; Narissa J Nonzee; June M McKoy; Dachao Liu; Thanh Ha Luu; Peter Byer; Elizabeth A Eklund; Elizabeth A Richey; Zhigang Wu; XinQi Dong; Alfred W Rademaker Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Ashley Nd Meyer; Dean F Sittig; Derek W Meeks; Eric J Thomas; Hardeep Singh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 7.035