Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26220545›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Missed diagnostic opportunities and English general practice: a study to determine their incidence, confounding and contributing factors and potential impact on patients through retrospective review of electronic medical records.

Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Hardeep Singh, David Reeves, Jill Stocks, Morris Rebecca, Aneez Esmail, Stephen Campbell, Carl de Wet

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient safety research in primary care: where are we now?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sudeh Cheraghi-SohiNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. sudeh.cheraghi-sohi@manchester.ac.uk.
Hardeep SinghHouston Veterans Affairs Centre for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Centre and Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Blvd. 152, Houston, TX, 77030, 713.794.8601, USA. hardeeps@bcm.edu.
David ReevesCentre for Primary Care: Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. david.reeves@manchester.ac.uk.
Jill StocksNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. jill.stocks@manchester.ac.uk.
Morris RebeccaNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. rebecca.morris@manchester.ac.uk.
Aneez EsmailNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. aneez.esmail@manchester.ac.uk.
Stephen CampbellNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk.
Carl de WetSchool of Medicine, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. c.de-wet.1@research.gla.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient safety research has focused largely on hospital settings despite the fact that in many countries, the majority of patient contacts are in primary care. The knowledge base about patient safety in primary care is developing but sparse and diagnostic error is a relatively understudied and an unmeasured area of patient safety. Diagnostic error rates vary according to how 'error' is defined but one suggested hallmark is clear evidence of 'missed opportunity' (MDOs) makes a correct or timely diagnosis to prevent them. While there is no agreed definition or method of measuring MDOs, retrospective manual chart or patient record reviews are a 'gold standard'. This study protocol aims to (1) determine the incidence of MDOs in English general practice, (2) identify the confounding and contributing factors that lead to MDOs and (3) determine the (potential) impact of the detected MDOs on patients. METHODS/

designWe plan to conduct a two-phase retrospective review of electronic health records in the Greater Manchester (GM) area of the UK. In the first phase, clinician reviewers will calibrate their performance in identifying and assessing MDOs against a gold standard 'primary reviewer' through the use of 'double' reviews of records. The findings will enable a preliminary estimate of the incidence of MDOs in general practice, which will be used to calculate the number of records to be reviewed in the second phase in order to estimate the true incidence of MDO in general practice. A sample of 15 general practices is required for phase 1 and up to 35 practices for phase 2. In each practice, the sample will consist of 100 patients aged ≥18 years on 1 April 2013 who have attended a face-to-face 'index consultation' between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015. The index consultation will be selected randomly from each unique patient record, occurring between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. DISCUSSION: There are no reliable estimates of safety problems related to diagnosis in English general practice. This study will lay the foundation for safety improvements in this area by providing a more reliable estimate of MDOs, their impact and their contributory factors.

Indexed as

Medical AuditAdultDiagnostic ErrorsEnglandGeneral PracticeHumansIncidenceObserver VariationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26220545
PMCPMC4518650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.