Daniel R Murphy1, Ashley N D Meyer2, Viralkumar Vaghani2, Elise Russo2, Dean F Sittig3, Li Wei2, Louis Wu4, Hardeep Singh2. 1. Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: drmurphy@bcm.edu. 2. Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 3. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston's School of Biomedical Informatics and the UT-Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality & Safety, Houston, Texas. 4. Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We previously developed electronic triggers to automatically flag records for patients experiencing potential delays in diagnostic evaluation for certain cancers. Because of the unique clinical, logistic, and legal aspects of mammography, this study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a trigger to flag delayed follow-up on mammography. METHODS: An algorithm was developed to detect delays in follow-up of abnormal mammographic results (>60 days for BI-RADS® 0, 4, and 5 and >7 months for BI-RADS 3) using clinical data in the electronic health record. Flagged records were then manually reviewed to determine the trigger's performance characteristics (positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity). The frequency of delays and patient communication related to abnormal results, reasons for lack of follow-up, and whether patients were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 365,686 patients seen between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2015, the trigger identified 2,129 patients with abnormal findings on mammography, of whom it flagged 552 as having delays in follow-up. From these, review of 400 randomly selected records revealed 283 true delays (positive predictive value, 71%; 95% confidence interval, 66%-75%), including 280 records without any documented plan and three patients with plans that were not adhered to. Transcription and reporting inconsistencies were identified in 27% of externally performed mammographic reports. Only 335 records (84%) contained specific documentation that the patient was informed of the abnormal result. CONCLUSIONS: Care delays appear to continue despite federal laws requiring patient notification of mammographic results within 30 days. Clinical application of mammography-related triggers could help detect these delays. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: We previously developed electronic triggers to automatically flag records for patients experiencing potential delays in diagnostic evaluation for certain cancers. Because of the unique clinical, logistic, and legal aspects of mammography, this study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a trigger to flag delayed follow-up on mammography. METHODS: An algorithm was developed to detect delays in follow-up of abnormal mammographic results (>60 days for BI-RADS® 0, 4, and 5 and >7 months for BI-RADS 3) using clinical data in the electronic health record. Flagged records were then manually reviewed to determine the trigger's performance characteristics (positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity). The frequency of delays and patient communication related to abnormal results, reasons for lack of follow-up, and whether patients were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 365,686 patients seen between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2015, the trigger identified 2,129 patients with abnormal findings on mammography, of whom it flagged 552 as having delays in follow-up. From these, review of 400 randomly selected records revealed 283 true delays (positive predictive value, 71%; 95% confidence interval, 66%-75%), including 280 records without any documented plan and three patients with plans that were not adhered to. Transcription and reporting inconsistencies were identified in 27% of externally performed mammographic reports. Only 335 records (84%) contained specific documentation that the patient was informed of the abnormal result. CONCLUSIONS: Care delays appear to continue despite federal laws requiring patient notification of mammographic results within 30 days. Clinical application of mammography-related triggers could help detect these delays. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic health records; breast cancer; diagnostic delays; health IT; mammography; medical informatics; primary care; triggers
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Adam Wright; Enrico Coiera; Farah Magrabi; Raj Ratwani; David W Bates; Hardeep Singh Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Vanessa L Merker; Bronwyn Slobogean; Justin T Jordan; Shannon Langmead; Mark Meterko; Martin P Charns; A Rani Elwy; Jaishri O Blakeley; Scott R Plotkin Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 2.578
Authors: Andrew J Zimolzak; Umber Shahid; Traber D Giardina; Sahar A Memon; Umair Mushtaq; Lisa Zubkoff; Daniel R Murphy; Andrea Bradford; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sharon Chiang; Robert Moss; Angela P Black; Michele Jackson; Chuck Moss; Jonathan Bidwell; Christian Meisel; Tobias Loddenkemper Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh; Andrew J Zimolzak; Li Wei; Debra T Choi; Abigail D Marinez; Daniel R Murphy Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 6.604
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
Authors: Yin Zhou; Gary A Abel; William Hamilton; Hardeep Singh; Fiona M Walter; Georgios Lyratzopoulos Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 2.984