‘Countless’ Patients Harmed By Wrong or Delayed Diagnoses


Evidence is incomplete, but still shows most patients will be impacted by the problem at some point in their lives.

Doctor showing digital tablet x-ray to patient

Most people experience at least one diagnostic error during their life, according to a new report investigating wrong or delayed diagnoses.

The Institute of Medicine on Tuesday released a ground-breaking report calling wrong or delayed diagnoses a vast “blind-spot” in U.S. healthcare and blaming them for harming countless patients each year.

The report, called “Improving Diagnosis in Health Care,” asserts that diagnostic errors occur daily in every health care setting nationwide, yet they have never been adequately studied. No one knows how many people suffer from misdiagnoses or delays that affect their care.

Despite the sketchy evidence, the authors conclude that “most people will experience at least one diagnostic error in their lifetime, sometimes with devastating consequences.”

“This problem is significant and serious [yet] we don’t know for sure how often it occurs, how serious it is or how much it costs,” says Dr. John Ball, of the American College of Physicians, who chaired the committee that carried out the analysis. He called the lack of evidence one of the committee’s most “surprising” and distressing findings.

 Advocates hailed the report for calling attention to a problem that has been neglected for decades despite its importance to doctors and patients alike.

“It’s huge that diagnosis is finally getting the attention it deserves,” says Helen Haskell, co-chair of the patient committee at the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, who was invited by the committee to review a draft of the report. “There are lots of people who think our failure to tackle this is one reason why patient safety hasn’t progressed farther.

“Improving Diagnosis in Health Care,” is the latest installment in a series which began with “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” which made national headlines 16 years ago by estimating that 44,000 to 98,000 people die from preventable medical errors each year. Each report in the series has focused on lapses responsible for poor quality health care and how to correct them.

At least 5 percent outpatients are incorrectly diagnosed by their doctors, a new study says.

RELATED

At Least 1 in 20 Americans Misdiagnosed by Their Doctors, Study Finds

Despite the committee’s inability to offer even a rough estimate of the pervasiveness of faulty diagnoses–a limitation likely to disappoint patient advocates and others who were anticipating the committee’s answer to that question–the report does offer some indications of the problem’s seriousness.

Studies show:

  • About 5 percent of adults who seek outpatient care annually suffer a delayed or wrong diagnosis.
  • Postmortem research suggests that diagnostic errors are implicated in one of every 10 patient deaths. Not every death is scrutinized, however, so the findings can’t be generalized to all hospital patients.
  • Chart reviews indicate that diagnostic errors account for up to 17 percent of hospital adverse events.
  • Diagnostic errors are the principle cause of paid malpractice claims and are almost twice as likely to end in a patient’s death than claims for other medical mishaps. They also represent the biggest share of total payments.

Getting the right diagnosis is critical, because it is the starting point for every other health care decision. Sometimes diagnostic errors or delays stem from poor judgment, including “shortcuts that people take,” such as a physician who makes superficial assumptions based on past experience rather than current information, Ball says.

Often diagnostic errors result from poor coordination of care. “Not all errors are individual human errors,” he says. “They occur in a system that leads you into [certain] kinds of errors.” He cited the emergency room, a chaotic setting with a constant stream of patients and information, where doctors, nurses, technicians and laboratory personnel must multi-task amid countless distractions.

One vital check on the accuracy of a diagnosis is following up with the patient, a cycle that promotes better care and reinforces learning, says Dr. Donald Berwick, president emeritus and senior fellow at the Institute of Healthcare Improvement. “The diagnosis is the hypothesis, the treatment is a test. If we don’t know what happened to the patient it’s difficult to improve either our diagnosis or treatment.”

The glut of tests–some ordered by doctors who are practicing defensive medicine to protect against malpractice lawsuits–compounds the problem. “There’s a tremendous reliance on tests,” says Haskell, of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine. “You have to know to order the right test, and the test has to be interpreted correctly all along the line. It’s a complicated system with a lot of opportunities for error.”

Clumsy health information technology, including electronic medical records, also represents a “barrier to good health care,” Ball says, because information isn’t easily accessible and is often presented in a confusing manner.

Berwick, who also reviewed the report for the institute, cited one crucial omission–the committee decided not to address over-diagnosis, a diagnosis that is made that is not helpful to patients. “They might not define that as an error,” he says, “But I think the task of addressing over-diagnosis is critical.”

Finally, Berwick says, it’s important to factor into any assessment of medical errors the heavy administrative demands placed on doctors. “Physicians today spend so much time filling out forms, seeking approvals and ordering things–you can’t increase work pressure so much without expecting errors to increase.

There is no easy fix, the report concludes. What’s required is a major reassessment of the diagnostic process and a commitment to change. It must begin with a common definition of what constitutes a diagnostic error–and the data to figure out possible remedies and measure progress.

“What I like is that the report emphasizes that teamwork is necessary to have a system that works,” says Haskell. “You have to have coordinated care, patient involvement and the involvement of non-physician personnel.”

Absent a better solution, Haskell says, “you need to do your own research to find out what tests are needed and be sure they’re being done. You need to get the results.”

“Patients bear the financial burden of all this,” she adds. “Patients or their insurers. The medical system profits from it.”

Telemedicine Is The Future Of Health Care: On-Call Docs To Examine, Diagnose, And Treat Patients Remotely


Smartphones and tablets are used for just about everything, from monitoring your bank account to ordering a cab, so it would only make sense that health care become part of this technological advancement. Telemedicine is the union between technology and health, and many believe it is the future of health care in the U.S.

On Monday, at the American Telemedicine Association’s trade show in Los Angeles, American Well, a telemedicine provider, announced “Telehealth 2.0” — a broad sweeping list of telemedicine products and services. These include live “video visits” on your phone and the web, real-time patient data, and the ability for doctors to review and accept/decline visits on their mobile phone.

“We [want to] take telehealth that was used as a convenience measure for patients and put it in the hands of physicians,” said American Well CEO Roy Schoenberg, as reported by Forbes.

American Well’s move has further strengthened the prediction telemedicine is not a passing phase but here to stay. The technology needed for telemedicine as well as the demand for its services has been around for decades, but it’s not until fairly recently that this idea of “virtual check-ups” began to be taken seriously by health professionals.

Telemedicine is highly convenient, a factor that is helping in its rise in popularity. American Well’s new app for physicians will include integrations with Apple’s biometrics to allow patients health records available at the touch of a finger. American Well also has an app which matches patients with doctors within two minutes. According to Forbes, American Well foresees doctors eventually easily shifting between their virtual and physical waiting room patients, a skill which will allow them to see more patients than ever before. Allowing doctors to deal with minor health concerns, such as flus and colds in a virtual setting would theoretically make more space in actual waiting rooms for more seriously ill patients.

Beyond the cold and flu, Schoenberg explains, telemedicine has potential to treat more complex conditions, such as cancer and heart disease. Large hospital systems like the Cleveland Clinic and Massachusetts General are currently using American Well technology to treat patients, he said.

Wired reported that UnitedHealthcare, Oscar, WellPoint, and some BlueCross BlueSheild plans have adopted telemedicine programs in recent years.

While telemedicine does sound exciting, it’s not without its hurdles. For example, making access to a doctor that easy may lead to patient-overuse, a problem which could overwhelm the already inundated health care system. There’s also the fact that old habits die hard and although it may be possible to have a virtual doctor’s appointment, for now, doctors and patients alike may prefer the old-fashioned face-to-face check-up.

Regardless of these hurdles, it’s clear that telemedicine is here to stay and bound to only become more popular. And while there is a long way to go before we’re all able to have 24/7 medical help at the touch of our fingers, this latest announcement from American Well is certainly a step in that direction.

Specialized Care Didn’t Affect Healthcare Use Among Confused Hospitalized EldersBut patients were happier, and their families were satisfied with their care..


 

 
Some hospitals have specialized units to care for older, cognitively impaired patients, but whether such units improve outcomes is unclear. In this randomized trial, investigators compared care in a specialized unit versus standard care (geriatric or general medical wards) in 600 patients (median age, 85) identified as “confused” on admission to a large U.K. hospital. Specialized unit staff were skilled in managing patients with delirium and dementia, and specialized care included regular psychiatrist visits, organized activities, a physical environment tailored to patients with cognitive impairment, and proactive involvement of family caregivers.

After adjusting for multiple variables, investigators found no significant differences between patients randomized to specialized care and those randomized to standard care in days spent at home during 90 days after randomization (51 and 45 days) or in median length of hospital stay (11 days in both groups). Rates of return home from the hospital, in-hospital mortality, 90-day survival, hospital readmission, and nursing home placement also were similar. However, specialized-unit patients were significantly more likely than standard-care patients to be in a positive mood (79% vs. 68%), and their family caregivers were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their care (91% vs. 83%).

COMMENT

In this trial, confused elders admitted to a specialized unit did not have superior healthcare-use outcomes or longer survival than those admitted to geriatric or general medical wards. Although patient mood and family caregivers’ satisfaction favored specialized care over standard care, the absolute differences were small. Based on these findings, justifying the costs associated with such specialized units would be difficult.

Source: NEJM

 

Yes, You Can Hack a Pacemaker (and Other Medical Devices Too).


On Sunday’s episode of the Emmy award-winning show Homeland, the Vice President of the United States is assassinated by a group of terrorists that have hacked into the pacemaker controlling his heart. In an elaborate plot, they obtain the device’s unique identification number. They then are able to remotely take control and administer large electrical shocks, bringing on a fatal heart attack.

Viewers were shocked — many questioned if something like this was possible in real life. In short: Yes (except, the part about the attacker being halfway across the world is questionable). For years, researchers have been exposing enormous vulnerabilities in Internet-connected implanted medical devices.

There are millions of people who rely on these brilliant technologies to stay alive. But as we put more electronic devices into our bodies, there are serious security challenges that must be addressed. We are familiar with the threat that cyber-crime poses to the computers around us — however, we have not yet prepared for the threat it may pose to the computers inside of us.

Implanted devices have been around for decades, but only in the last decade have these devices become virtually accessible. While they allow for doctors to collect valuable data, many of these devices were distributed without any type of encryption or defensive mechanisms in place. Unlike a regular electronic device that can be loaded with new firmware, medical devices are embedded inside the body and require surgery for “full” updates. One of the greatest constraints to adding additional security features is the very limited amount of battery power available.

Thankfully, there have been no recorded cases of a death or injury resulting from a cyber attack on the body. All demonstrations so far have been conducted for research purposes only. But if somebody decides to use these methods for nefarious purposes, it may go undetected.

Marc Goodman, a global security expert and the track chair for Policy, Law and Ethics at Singularity University, explains just how difficult it is to detect these types of attacks. “Even if a case were to go to the coroner’s office for review,” he asks, “how many public medical examiners would be capable of conducting a complex computer forensics investigation?” Even more troubling was, “The evidence of medical device tampering might not even be located on the body, where the coroner is accustomed to finding it, but rather might be thousands of kilometers away, across an ocean on a foreign computer server.”

Since knowledge of these vulnerabilities became public in 2008, there have been rapid advancements in the types of hacking successfully attempted.

The equipment needed to hack a transmitter used to cost tens of thousands of dollars; last year a researcher hacked his insulin pump using an Arduino module that cost less than $20. Barnaby Jack, a security researcher at McAfee, in April demonstrated a system that could scan for and compromise insulin pumps that communicate wirelessly. With a push of a button on his laptop, he could have any pump within 300 feet dump its entire contents, without even needing to know the devices’ identification numbers. At a different conference, Jack showed how he reverse engineered a pacemaker and could deliver an 830-volt shock to a person’s device from 50 feet away — which he likened to an “anonymous assassination.”

There have also been some fascinating advancements in the emerging field of security for medical devices. Researchers have created a “noise” shield that can block out certain attacks — but have strangely run into problems with telecommunication companies looking to protect their frequencies. There have been the discussions of using ultrasound waves to determine the distance between a transmitted and medical device to prevent far-away attacks. Another team has developed biometric heartbeat sensors to allow devices within a body to communicate with each other, keeping out intruding devices and signals.

But these developments pale in comparison to the enormous difficulty of protecting against “medical cybercrime,” and the rest of the industry is falling badly behind.

In hospitals around the country there has been a dangerous rise of malware infections in computerized equipment. Many of these systems are running very old versions of Windows that are susceptible to viruses from years ago, and some manufacturers will not allow their equipment to be modified, even with security updates, partially due to regulatory restrictions. A solution to this problem requires a rethinking of the legal protections, the loosening of equipment guidelines, as well as increased disclosure to patients.

Government regulators have studied this issue and recommended that the FDA take these concerns into account when approving devices. This may be a helpful first step, but the government will not be able to keep up with the fast developments of cyber-crime. As the digital and physical world continue to come together, we are going to need an aggressive system of testing and updating these systems. The devices of yesterday were not created to protect against the threats of tomorrow.

Source:Forbes

Online Access to Personal Health Records Increases Use of Services .


Patients with online access to personal health records unexpectedly increased their use of most clinical services, according to a JAMA study. Previous studies found the opposite effect.

The retrospective cohort study involved some 44,000 users of Kaiser Permanente Colorado‘s MyHealthManager who were matched to members who did not establish accounts. Matching was based on members’ history of office visits.

Compared with nonusers, users had an increased rate of office visits in the year following activation of their MyHealthManager account, a difference of 0.7 per member per year. Similarly, telephone encounters, after-hours clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations all rose significantly. Among patients with coronary artery disease, use of services did not increase.

Editorialists call the findings “sobering for patient portal enthusiasts.” They speculate that the reason for the discrepancy between this and earlier studies may have to do with regional differences in healthcare delivery.

Source: JAMA

Understanding the Effect of Healthcare Workers’ Hand Hygiene.


Using a novel method, investigators revealed marked heterogeneity in healthcare worker interactions and in the potential consequences of their hand hygiene.

Attempts to understand disease transmission in healthcare settings have generally assumed that healthcare workers (HCWs) move and interact uniformly. However, observational studies have suggested the possibility of peripatetic “superspreaders” who have greater-than-average mobility and interactivity — and thus more opportunity to spread infection. In a recent study conducted in the medical intensive care unit of a university hospital, researchers assessed this possibility.

The researchers used small electronic badges worn by HCWs, together with fixed-position beacons, to determine patterns of HCW movement and interactions within this 20-bed unit. They then used these data to mathematically model the effect of HCW hand hygiene on pathogen transmission.

During the 48-hour period of analysis, the average number of contacts (HCW–HCW and HCW–patient) per HCW was 80.1 for day shifts and 76.1 for night shifts. However, a few HCWs were responsible for a disproportionately large share of the contacts. Modeling the effect of hand-hygiene activity on disease transmission showed that spread of a pathogen would be significantly greater with noncompliance of a few high-contact staff members than with noncompliance of an equal number of low-contact workers.

Comment: Hand hygiene is a central tenet of infection control, yet since the original work of Semmelweis, there has been relatively little research on the direct effects of hand-hygiene behavior on disease transmission. Hornbeck and colleagues have provided new insights into HCW contacts, which can help us to understand the role of hand hygiene in preventing nosocomial spread of pathogens and thus to develop more-sophisticated approaches for improving its efficacy.

Source: Journal Watch Infectious Diseases

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pregnancy-related cancers on rise.


The rate of pregnancy-associated cancer is increasing and is only partially explained by the rising number of older mothers according to research led by the University of Sydney.

The researchers say improved diagnostic techniques, detection and increased interaction with health services during pregnancy may contribute to the higher rates of pregnancy-associated cancer.

The findings, co-authored by Dr Christine Roberts from the Kolling Institute at Sydney Medical School, were recently published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Cathy Lee, a Masters student in Biostatics at the University, is lead author of the study.

“The genetic and environmental origins of pregnancy-associated cancers are likely to pre-date the pregnancy but the hormones and growth factors necessary for a baby to develop may accelerate the growth of a tumour,” Dr Christine Roberts said.

The Australian study looked at 1.3 million births between 1994 and 2008. The rate of pregnancy-associated cancer, where the initial diagnosis of cancer is made during pregnancy or within 12 months of delivery, was compared to pregnant women without cancer (using the same parameters).

It found that over a 14-year period the incidence rate of pregnancy-associated cancer increased from 112.3 per 100,000 to 191.5

“Although this represents a 70 percent increase in cancers diagnosed during or soon after pregnancy it is important to note that cancer remains rare affecting about two in every 1000 pregnancies,” Dr Roberts said.

Although the age of the mother is a strong risk factor for cancer, increasing maternal age explained only some of the increase in cancer occurring.

“Pregnancy increases women’s interaction with health services and together with improved techniques for detecting cancer the possibility for diagnosis is therefore increased,” Dr Roberts said.

The most common cancers detected were skin melanomas, breast cancer, thyroid and other endocrine cancers, gynaecological and lymphohaematopoeitic cancers. The high incidence of melanoma may relate to the fact Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world.

The study also looked at pregnancy outcomes and found that cancer during pregnancy was associated with a significantly increased risk of caesarean section and planned preterm birth which may be to allow cancer treatment to commence.

Importantly there was no evidence of harm to the babies of women with cancer – they were not at increased risk of reduced growth or death.

Source: Science Alert

 

 

IOM: One Third of Healthcare Dollars Wasted .


Roughly one third of the money spent on U.S. healthcare in 2009 — about $750 billion — didn’t improve patients‘ health, according to an Institute of Medicine report released Thursday.

The report, Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America, outlined six categories of waste — unnecessary services, inefficient delivery of care, unnecessary administrative costs, inflated prices, missed opportunities for prevention, and fraud.

Among the group’s recommendations to help improve care while reducing cost:

  • Decision-support tools and knowledge management systems at point of care should be an integral part of the healthcare system.
  • Clinicians should use digital systems to capture patient care experiences.
  • Patients and caregivers should be encouraged to partner with clinicians in making healthcare decisions.
  • Clinicians should partner with community-based organizations and public health agencies to coordinate interventions to improve health, including use of Web-based tools.
  • The payment system should be reformed to reward quality care.

Source:Institute of Medicine

Can Doctors Predict the Future?


There are lots of myths and misconceptions surrounding personalized healthcare. Over the next few weeks, I am going to address some of these beliefs to help you better understand the truths about this exciting field.

Myth: Personalized healthcare is a “crystal ball” into my future health

Using personalized healthcare tools such as family history, doctors can predict the likelihood that you will develop a particular disease or whether a medication will be more or less effective for you. Personalized healthcare can direct your care, but it cannot predict the future with certainty.

Doctorscan look at your family health history for patterns of disease. They can use that information to assess your risk of developing diseases. If you are more likely to develop a disease, doctors can advise you about ways to slow the disease process or prevent it altogether. However, they can’t say for certain, “You will develop this disease.”

The same holds true for predicting how you will respond to medication — pharmacogenetics — although sometimes there is a more definite yes or no answer. It varies from drug to drug, and genetic testing for drugs can focus on safety, efficacy in dosing, or both.

For example, before doctors can prescribe abacavir, a drug used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, patients are strongly recommended to have a specific genetic test done. This genetic test can tell if they are likely to have a hypersensitivity reaction (allergic reaction) to the drug. Because such reactions can be so severe, including death, it is important to know who can safely take abacavir.

Genetic testing for other drugs may have a different focus: efficacy. For example, clopidogrel is used to prevent blood clots in the body, and a genetic test can help determine if a patient will metabolize the drug quickly or slowly. People who metabolize the drug slowly may require a higher dose for the medication to work as intended. If these “poor metabolizers” are not identified before starting treatment with clopidogrel, they may receive too low a dose, leading to the formation of blood clots.

As you can see, personalized healthcare is not a crystal ball, but rather more like eyeglasses — it can’t predict the future, but it can help you see it more clearly!

Source: Heath Club

Diabetes management enhanced through successful home health care.


According to Karen A. McKnight, RD, LD, CDE, and Mary Teipen, RN, CDE, from the Indiana HomeCare Network, home health care is an effective and cost-effective option for patients with diabetes.

Using their personal experiences as home health providers, McKnight and Teipen shared insight on their home health care company, and made suggestions on how others can successfully handle the sometimes challenging feat of managing diabetes and other chronic illnesses in a home care setting.

“We all know that patients do better in their home setting, it’s a lot safer for them, there’s less risk for infection and it’s more cost-effective,” Teipen said during a presentation.

While the benefits seem obvious, Teipen said many patients and physicians aren’t even aware this form of health care is available.

“A lot of our elder Americans don’t take advantage of their home health benefit in Medicare because medical providers don’t refer them. Providers are so confused about that terminology – being ‘homebound,’” Teipen said. “Homebound doesn’t mean that you’re bedridden or that you can never leave your home. It basically means that they (patients) need assistance to leave the home, or when they do leave the home it’s a very taxing effort.”

McKnight said that one of the biggest challenges of home care is not getting patients interested in the opportunity, but reimbursement. Since 2006, McKnight said, home health reimbursement has declined by 8.5%.

“It seems each year Medicare cuts the amount that they’re paying home health, little by little. Some agencies are seeing as much as a 10% decrease, and some are seeing less, depending on certain factors. The National Association for Hospice and Home Care has estimated that this year 53% of the nation’s home care agencies will be operating at break-even or at a loss. It’s a huge issue and a big concern for those of us in this room who work in home care, in terms of what the future holds there,” McKnight said.

When coupled with deductibles and copayments that are beyond the aging patient’s budget, the impact is greater, she said.

McKnight said other issues have plagued the home health arena, despite its benefit. She and Teipen’s home health company has managed to pull through this complex area of disease management by focusing on four main specialties, one of which is diabetes due to its current trend.

“Our diabetes program is customized to meet the specialty needs of home health patients and it is very self-management education-focused for the patient and for the caregiver. In addition to that patient and caregiver focus, we have been advancing in developing the staff training component,” McKnight said.

All of their clinical staff is trained in basic diabetes patient care, Certified Diabetes Educators (CDEs) attend case conferences to discuss ever-changing complex needs of patients, and the RNs and CDEs visit the most challenging patients to develop a team approach.

Looking to the future, McKnight and Teipen said they will utilize technology at the highest level; with tele-health monitoring, video conferencing, web-based resources, physician portals, transitional care through electronic medical records and telephone patient follow-up time.

Their advice to physicians, nurses and other diabetes educators is to “just get started,” and make staff education a priority from orientation to ongoing training. Additionally, they said each home health company needs a champion with leadership and support to influence the process. Communication is the key, they said. – By Samantha Costa

Disclosure: Ms. McKnight and Teipen report no relevant financial disclosures.

For more information:

McKnight KA, Teipen M. #W20. Presented at: The American Association of Diabetes Educators 2012 Annual Meeting & Exhibition. August 1-4; Indianapolis, IN.

Perspective

  • I got into diabetes education through home care. My goal was to provide home care services to the homebound; it’s always been my first love. I really do agree with what they said – people get better when they’re in their own environment. That’s when you’re going to find out what they really have in their cupboards. Do they have the Rice Krispies or the whole wheat cereal, and so on?

With the new health care reform, I think that home care is going to become an entity that needs to be incorporated because it is cost-effective. Monies are going to have to be spent to facilitate the transition from acute care to home care, and yet still have some sort of follow-up.

So, ACOs or whatever we’re going to call them, medical homes, it’s all going to have to be related. They’re going to have to include the home care perspective. Patients appreciate it. I think the expertise that the nurses are going to have to develop is only going to increase. The diabetes field is just exploding with new products and new technologies.

    • Anne Cannon, BSN, RN, CDE
    • Senior Medical Liaison for Novo Nordisk

 

  • Source: Endocrine Today.