Viraj Bhise1,2,3,4, Suja S Rajan3, Dean F Sittig5, Viralkumar Vaghani1,2, Robert O Morgan3, Arushi Khanna1,2, Hardeep Singh1,2. 1. Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 3. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 4. John A Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA. 5. School of Biomedical Informatics and UT-Memorial Hermann Center for Health Care Quality and Safety, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic uncertainty is common in primary care. Because it is challenging to measure, there is inadequate scientific understanding of diagnostic decision-making during uncertainty. Our objective was to understand how diagnostic uncertainty was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and explore a strategy to retrospectively identify it using clinician documentation. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to identify documentation language that could identify both direct expression and indirect inference of diagnostic uncertainty and designed an instrument to facilitate record review. Direct expression included clinician's use of question marks, differential diagnoses, symptoms as diagnosis, or vocabulary such as "probably, maybe, likely, unclear or unknown," while describing the diagnosis. Indirect inference included absence of documented diagnosis at the end of the visit, ordering of multiple consultations or diagnostic tests to resolve diagnostic uncertainty, and use of suspended judgement, test of treatment, and risk-averse disposition. Two physician-reviewers independently reviewed notes on a sample of outpatient visits to identify diagnostic uncertainty at the end of the visit. Documented Ninth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) diagnosis codes and note quality were assessed. RESULTS: Of 389 patient records reviewed, 218 had evidence of diagnostic activity and were included. In 156 visits (71.6%), reviewers identified clinicians who experienced diagnostic uncertainty with moderate inter-reviewer agreement (81.7%; Cohen's kappa: 0.609). Most cases (125, 80.1%) showed evidence of both direct expression and indirect inference. Uncertainty was directly expressed in 139 (89.1%) cases, most commonly by using symptoms as diagnosis (98, 62.8%), and inferred in 144 (92.3%). In more than 1/3 of visits (58, 37.2%), diagnostic uncertainty was recorded inappropriately using ICD-9 codes. CONCLUSIONS: While current diagnosis coding mechanisms (ICD-9 and ICD-10) are unable to capture uncertainty, our study finds that review of EHR documentation can help identify diagnostic uncertainty with moderate reliability. Better measurement and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty could help inform strategies to improve the safety and efficiency of diagnosis.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic uncertainty is common in primary care. Because it is challenging to measure, there is inadequate scientific understanding of diagnostic decision-making during uncertainty. Our objective was to understand how diagnostic uncertainty was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and explore a strategy to retrospectively identify it using clinician documentation. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to identify documentation language that could identify both direct expression and indirect inference of diagnostic uncertainty and designed an instrument to facilitate record review. Direct expression included clinician's use of question marks, differential diagnoses, symptoms as diagnosis, or vocabulary such as "probably, maybe, likely, unclear or unknown," while describing the diagnosis. Indirect inference included absence of documented diagnosis at the end of the visit, ordering of multiple consultations or diagnostic tests to resolve diagnostic uncertainty, and use of suspended judgement, test of treatment, and risk-averse disposition. Two physician-reviewers independently reviewed notes on a sample of outpatient visits to identify diagnostic uncertainty at the end of the visit. Documented Ninth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) diagnosis codes and note quality were assessed. RESULTS: Of 389 patient records reviewed, 218 had evidence of diagnostic activity and were included. In 156 visits (71.6%), reviewers identified clinicians who experienced diagnostic uncertainty with moderate inter-reviewer agreement (81.7%; Cohen's kappa: 0.609). Most cases (125, 80.1%) showed evidence of both direct expression and indirect inference. Uncertainty was directly expressed in 139 (89.1%) cases, most commonly by using symptoms as diagnosis (98, 62.8%), and inferred in 144 (92.3%). In more than 1/3 of visits (58, 37.2%), diagnostic uncertainty was recorded inappropriately using ICD-9 codes. CONCLUSIONS: While current diagnosis coding mechanisms (ICD-9 and ICD-10) are unable to capture uncertainty, our study finds that review of EHR documentation can help identify diagnostic uncertainty with moderate reliability. Better measurement and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty could help inform strategies to improve the safety and efficiency of diagnosis.
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Valy Fontil; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Mekhala Hoskote; Shantanu Nundy; Courtney R Lyles; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Victoria Y Vivtcharenko; Sonali Ramesh; Kimberly C Dukes; Hardeep Singh; Loreen A Herwaldt; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Christina L Cifra Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Stephanie Garies; Phoebe Ng; James A Dickinson; Terrence McDonald; Maeve O'Beirne; Kerry A McBrien; Catherine Eastwood; Danielle A Southern; Neil Drummond; Hude Quan Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2022-08