Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31504576›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

A patient and family reporting system for perceived ambulatory note mistakes: experience at 3 U.S. healthcare centers.

Fabienne C Bourgeois, Alan Fossa, Macda Gerard, Marion E Davis, Yhenneko J Taylor, Crystal D Connor, Tracela Vaden, Andrew McWilliams, Melanie D Spencer, Patricia Folcarelli and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Fabienne C BourgeoisDepartment of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Alan FossaDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Macda GerardDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Marion E DavisCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Yhenneko J TaylorCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Crystal D ConnorCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Tracela VadenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Andrew McWilliamsCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Melanie D SpencerCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Patricia FolcarelliDepartment of Health Care Quality, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sigall K BellDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe study sought to test a patient and family online reporting system for perceived ambulatory visit note inaccuracies. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe implemented a patient and family electronic reporting system at 3 U.S. healthcare centers: a northeast urban academic adult medical center (AD), a northeast urban academic pediatric medical center (PED), and a southeast nonprofit hospital network (NET). Patients and families reported potential documentation inaccuracies after reading primary care and subspecialty visit notes. Results were characterized using descriptive statistics and coded for clinical relevance.

resultsWe received 1440 patient and family reports (780 AD, 402 PED, and 258 NET), and 27% of the reports identified a potential inaccuracy (25% AD, 35% PED, 28% NET). Among these, patients and families indicated that the potential inaccuracy was important or very important in 58% of reports (55% AD, 55% PED, 71% NET). The most common types of potential inaccuracies included description of symptoms (21%), past medical problems (21%), medications (18%), and important information that was missing (15%). Most patient- and family-reported inaccuracies resulted in a change to care or to the medical record (55% AD, 67% PED, data not available at NET). DISCUSSION: About one-quarter of patients and families using an online reporting system identified potential documentation inaccuracies in visit notes and more than half were considered important by patients and clinicians, underscoring the potential role of patients and families as ambulatory safety partners.

conclusionsPartnering with patients and families to obtain reports on inaccuracies in visit notes may contribute to safer care. Mechanisms to encourage greater use of patient and family reporting systems are needed.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsFeedbackPatient ParticipationAdultAmbulatory CareChildCommunicationFamilyHumansOnline SystemsUnited Statesdocumentation errorspatient and family engagementpatient and provider communicationpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID31504576
PMCPMC7647145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.