Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Tejal K Gandhi

Publications and source records attributed to Tejal K Gandhi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Medication-related clinical decision support in computerized provider order entry systems: a review.

While medications can improve patients' health, the process of prescribing them is complex and error prone, and medication errors cause many preventable injuries. Computer provider order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support (CDS), can improve patient safety and lower medication-related costs. To realize the medication-related benefits of CDS within CPOE, one must overcome significant challenges. Healthcare organizations implementing CPOE must understand what classes of CDS their CPOE systems can support, assure that clinical knowledge underlying their CDS systems is reasonable, and appropriately represent electronic patient data. These issues often influence to what extent an institution will succeed with its CPOE implementation and achieve its desired goals. Medication-related decision support is probably best introduced into healthcare organizations in two stages, basic and advanced. Basic decision support includes drug-allergy checking, basic dosing guidance, formulary decision support, duplicate therapy checking, and drug-drug interaction checking. Advanced decision support includes dosing support for renal insufficiency and geriatric patients, guidance for medication-related laboratory testing, drug-pregnancy checking, and drug-disease contraindication checking. In this paper, the authors outline some of the challenges associated with both basic and advanced decision support and discuss how those challenges might be addressed. The authors conclude with summary recommendations for delivering effective medication-related clinical decision support addressed to healthcare organizations, application and knowledge base vendors, policy makers, and researchers.

Contraindications↗
PubMed2006

Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.

BACKGROUND: Although missed and delayed diagnoses have become an important patient safety concern, they remain largely unstudied, especially in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for investigating missed and delayed diagnoses, advance understanding of their causes, and identify opportunities for prevention. DESIGN: Retrospective review of 307 closed malpractice claims in which patients alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ambulatory setting. SETTING: 4 malpractice insurance companies. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for patients, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. RESULTS: A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients. Fifty-nine percent (106 of 181) of these errors were associated with serious harm, and 30% (55 of 181) resulted in death. For 59% (106 of 181) of the errors, cancer was the diagnosis involved, chiefly breast (44 claims [24%]) and colorectal (13 claims [7%]) cancer. The most common breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (100 of 181 [55%]), failure to create a proper follow-up plan (81 of 181 [45%]), failure to obtain an adequate history or perform an adequate physical examination (76 of 181 [42%]), and incorrect interpretation of diagnostic tests (67 of 181 [37%]). The leading factors that contributed to the errors were failures in judgment (143 of 181 [79%]), vigilance or memory (106 of 181 [59%]), knowledge (86 of 181 [48%]), patient-related factors (84 of 181 [46%]), and handoffs (36 of 181 [20%]). The median number of process breakdowns and contributing factors per error was 3 for both (interquartile range, 2 to 4). LIMITATIONS: Reviewers were not blinded to the litigation outcomes, and the reliability of the error determination was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the result of multiple breakdowns and individual and system factors. Awareness of the most common types of breakdowns and factors could help efforts to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are an important patient safety concern, but little is known about their cause. We identify types and causes of missed or delayed diagnoses in the ED. METHODS: This is a review of 122 closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers in which patients had alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ED. Trained physician reviewers examined the litigation files and the associated medical records to determine whether an adverse outcome because of a missed diagnosis had occurred, what breakdowns were involved in the missed diagnosis, and what factors contributed to it. Main outcome measures were missed diagnoses, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. RESULTS: A total of 79 claims (65%) involved missed ED diagnoses that harmed patients. Forty-eight percent of these missed diagnoses were associated with serious harm, and 39% resulted in death. The leading breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (58% of errors), failure to perform an adequate medical history or physical examination (42%), incorrect interpretation of a diagnostic test (37%), and failure to order an appropriate consultation (33%). The leading contributing factors to the missed diagnoses were cognitive factors (96%), patient-related factors (34%), lack of appropriate supervision (30%), inadequate handoffs (24%), and excessive workload (23%). The median numbers of process breakdowns and contributing factors per missed diagnosis were 2 and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: Missed diagnoses in the ED have a complex cause. They are typically the result of multiple breakdowns in the diagnostic process and several contributing factors.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Medication dispensing errors and potential adverse drug events before and after implementing bar code technology in the pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Many dispensing errors made in hospital pharmacies can harm patients. Some hospitals are investing in bar code technology to reduce these errors, but data about its efficacy are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether implementation of bar code technology reduced dispensing errors and potential adverse drug events (ADEs). DESIGN: Before-and-after study using direct observations. SETTING: Hospital pharmacy at a 735-bed tertiary care academic medical center. INTERVENTION: A bar code-assisted dispensing system was implemented in 3 configurations. In 2 configurations, all doses were scanned once during the dispensing process. In the third configuration, only 1 dose was scanned if several doses of the same medication were being dispensed. MEASUREMENTS: Target dispensing errors, defined as dispensing errors that bar code technology was designed to address, and target potential ADEs, defined as target dispensing errors that can harm patients. RESULTS: In the pre- and post-bar code implementation periods, the authors observed 115,164 and 253,984 dispensed medication doses, respectively. Overall, the rates of target potential ADEs and all potential ADEs decreased by 74% and 63%, respectively. Of the 3 configurations of bar code technology studied, the 2 configurations that required staff to scan all doses had a 93% to 96% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P < 0.001) and 86% to 97% relative reduction in the incidence of potential ADEs (P < 0.001). However, the configuration that did not require scanning of every dose had only a 60% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P < 0.001) and an increased (by 2.4-fold) incidence of target potential ADEs (P = 0.014). There were several potentially life-threatening ADEs involving intravenous dopamine and intravenous heparin in that configuration. LIMITATIONS: The authors used surrogate outcomes; did not mask assessors to the purpose of study; and excluded the controlled substance fill process (a process with low error rates at baseline) from the study, which may bias the combined decrease in error rates toward a larger magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of dispensing errors and potential ADEs substantially decreased after implementing bar code technology. However, the technology should be configured to scan every dose during the dispensing process.

Drug Labeling↗
PubMed2006

Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation.

BACKGROUND: In the current debate over tort reform, critics of the medical malpractice system charge that frivolous litigation--claims that lack evidence of injury, substandard care, or both--is common and costly. METHODS: Trained physicians reviewed a random sample of 1452 closed malpractice claims from five liability insurers to determine whether a medical injury had occurred and, if so, whether it was due to medical error. We analyzed the prevalence, characteristics, litigation outcomes, and costs of claims that lacked evidence of error. RESULTS: For 3 percent of the claims, there were no verifiable medical injuries, and 37 percent did not involve errors. Most of the claims that were not associated with errors (370 of 515 [72 percent]) or injuries (31 of 37 [84 percent]) did not result in compensation; most that involved injuries due to error did (653 of 889 [73 percent]). Payment of claims not involving errors occurred less frequently than did the converse form of inaccuracy--nonpayment of claims associated with errors. When claims not involving errors were compensated, payments were significantly lower on average than were payments for claims involving errors (313,205 dollars vs. 521,560 dollars, P=0.004). Overall, claims not involving errors accounted for 13 to 16 percent of the system's total monetary costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including those involving lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of total administrative costs. CONCLUSIONS: Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the prevalence of potentially dangerous drug-drug, drug-laboratory, and drug-disease interactions among outpatients. Our objectives were to determine how frequently clinicians prescribe drugs in violation of black box warnings for these issues and to determine how frequently such prescribing results in harm. METHODS: In an observational study of 51 outpatient practices using an electronic health record, we measured the frequency with which patients received prescriptions in violation of black box warnings for drug-drug, drug-laboratory, and/or drug-disease interactions. We performed medical record reviews in a sample of patients to detect adverse drug events. Multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the relationship of prescribing in violation of black box warnings to patient and clinician characteristics, adjusting for potential confounders and clustering. RESULTS: Of 324 548 outpatients who received a medication in 2002, 2354 (0.7%) received a prescription in violation of a black box warning. After adjustment, receipt of medication in violation of a black box warning was more likely when patients were 75 years or older or female. The number of medications taken, the number of medical problems, and the site of care were also associated with violations. Less than 1% of patients who received a drug in violation of a black box warning had an adverse drug event as a result. CONCLUSIONS: About 7 in 1000 outpatients received a prescription violating a black box warning. Few incidents resulted in detectable harm.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room.

BACKGROUND: To better understand the operating room as a system and to identify system features that influence patient safety, we performed an analysis of operating room patient care using a prospective observational technique. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team comprised of human factors experts and surgeons conducted prospective observations of 10 complex general surgery cases in an academic hospital. Minute-to-minute observations were recorded in the field, and later coded and analyzed. A qualitative analysis first identified major system features that influenced team performance and patient safety. A quantitative analysis of factors related to these systems features followed. In addition, safety-compromising events were identified and analyzed for contributing and compensatory factors. RESULTS: Problems in communication and information flow, and workload and competing tasks were found to have measurable negative impact on team performance and patient safety in all 10 cases. In particular, the counting protocol was found to significantly compromise case progression and patient safety. We identified 11 events that potentially compromised patient safety, allowing us to identify recurring factors that contributed to or mitigated the overall effect on the patient's outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the role of prospective observational methods in exposing critical system features that influence patient safety and that can be the targets for patient safety initiatives. Communication breakdown and information loss, as well as increased workload and competing tasks, pose the greatest threats to patient safety in the operating room.

Communication↗
PubMed2006

How many hospital pharmacy medication dispensing errors go undetected?

BACKGROUND: Hospital pharmacies dispense large numbers of medication doses for hospitalized patients. A study was conducted at an academic tertiary care hospital to characterize the incidence and severity of medication dispensing errors in a hospital pharmacy. METHODS: Direct observation of dispensing processes was undertaken to determine presence of errors with review by a physician panel to determine severity. RESULTS: A total of 140,755 medication doses filled by pharmacy technicians were observed during a seven-month period, and 3.6% (5075) contalned errors. The hospital pharmacist detected only 79% of these errors during routine verification; thus, 0.75% of doses filled would have left the phannacy with undetected errors. Overall, 23.5% of undetected errors were potential adverse drug events (ADEs), of which 28% were serious and 0.8% were life threatening. The most common potential ADEs were incorrect medications (36%), incorrect strength (35%), and incorrect dosage form (21%). DISCUSSION: Given the volume of medications dispensed, even a low rate of drug distribution process translates into a large number of errors with potential to harm patients. Pharmacy distribution systems require further process redesign to achieve the highest possible level of safety and reliability.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed2006

Design and implementation of a web-based patient portal linked to an ambulatory care electronic health record: patient gateway for diabetes collaborative care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of expert guidelines and widespread diabetes quality improvement efforts, care of patients with diabetes remains suboptimal. Two key barriers to care that may be amenable to informatics-based interventions include (1) lack of patient engagement with therapeutic care plans and (2) lack of medication adjustment by physicians ("clinical inertia") during clinical encounters. METHODS: The authors describe the conceptual framework, design, implementation, and analysis plan for a diabetes patient web-portal linked directly to the electronic health record (EHR) of a large academic medical center via secure Internet access designed to overcome barriers to effective diabetes care. RESULTS: Partners HealthCare System (Boston, MA), a multi-hospital health care network comprising several thousand physicians caring for over 1 million individual patients, has developed a comprehensive patient web-portal called Patient Gateway that allows patients to interact directly with their EHR via secure Internet access. Using this portal, a specific diabetes interface was designed to maximize patient engagement by importing the patient's current clinical data in an educational format, providing patient-tailored decision support, and enabling the patient to author a "Diabetes Care Plan." The physician view of the patient's Diabetes Care Plan was designed to be concise and to fit into typical EHR clinical workflow. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully designed and implemented a Diabetes Patient portal that allows direct interaction with our system's EHR. We are assessing the impact of this advanced informatics tool for collaborative diabetes care in a clinic-randomized controlled trial among 14 primary care practices within our integrated health care system.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2006

Medication errors: not just a few "bad apples"

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe the distribution of medication errors among physicians.Design: Data on a cohort of internal medicine physicians were gathered prospectively over a seven-month period.Setting: The study was conducted in four adult primary care practices.Participants: Twenty-four physicians from Boston, MA participated in this study. A total of 661 patients agreed to participate in the study. The researchers surveyed patients to identify possible adverse drug events (ADEs). This information was supplemented by a chart review for each participating patient.Measurements: The principal measurement collected in this study was total medication errors per physician. The number of prescriptions written during the study period was also collected.Results: Twenty-two of the 24 physicians made at least one error. Although there was one outlier, the error rate among this cohort of physician was evenly distributed.Conclusion: The wide distribution of errors among this group of physicians undermines the argument that the majority of medication errors are due to a "few bad apples,"

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

Making the operating room of the future safer.

There is an increasing demand for interventions to improve patient safety, but there is limited data to guide such reform. In particular, because much of the existing research is outcome-driven, we have a limited understanding of the factors and process variations that influence safety in the operating room. In this article, we start with an overview of safety terminology, suggesting a model that emphasizes "safety" rather than "error" and that can encompass the spectrum of events occurring in the operating room. Next, we provide an introduction to techniques that can be used to understand safety at the point of care and we review the data that exists relating such studies to improved outcomes. Future work in this area will need to prospectively study the processes and factors that impact patient safety and vulnerability in the operating room.

General Surgery↗
PubMed2005

Medication safety in the ambulatory chemotherapy setting.

BACKGROUND: Little is known concerning the safety of the outpatient chemotherapy process. In the current study, the authors sought to identify medication error and potential adverse drug event (ADE) rates in the outpatient chemotherapy setting. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of two adult and one pediatric outpatient chemotherapy infusion units at one cancer institute was performed, involving the review of orders for patients receiving medication and/or chemotherapy and chart reviews. The adult infusion units used a computerized order entry writing system, whereas the pediatric infusion unit used handwritten orders. Data were collected between March and December 2000. RESULTS: The authors reviewed 10,112 medication orders (8008 adult unit orders and 2104 pediatric unit orders) from 1606 patients (1380 adults and 226 pediatric patients). The medication error rate was 3% (306 of 10,112 orders). Of these errors, 82% occurring in adults (203 of 249 orders) had the potential for harm and were potential ADEs, compared with 60% of orders occurring in pediatric patients (34 of 57 orders). Among these, approximately one-third were potentially serious. Pharmacists and nurses intercepted 45% of potential ADEs before they reached the patient. Several changes were implemented in the adult and pediatric settings as a result of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the authors found an ambulatory medication error rate of 3%, including 2% of orders with the potential to cause harm. Although these rates are relatively low, there is clearly the potential for serious patient harm. The current study identified strategies for prevention.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care.

Computerized drug prescribing alerts can improve patient safety, but are often overridden because of poor specificity and alert overload. Our objective was to improve clinician acceptance of drug alerts by designing a selective set of drug alerts for the ambulatory care setting and minimizing workflow disruptions by designating only critical to high-severity alerts to be interruptive to clinician workflow. The alerts were presented to clinicians using computerized prescribing within an electronic medical record in 31 Boston-area practices. There were 18,115 drug alerts generated during our six-month study period. Of these, 12,933 (71%) were noninterruptive and 5,182 (29%) interruptive. Of the 5,182 interruptive alerts, 67% were accepted. Reasons for overrides varied for each drug alert category and provided potentially useful information for future alert improvement. These data suggest that it is possible to design computerized prescribing decision support with high rates of alert recommendation acceptance by clinicians.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Patient safety concerns arising from test results that return after hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Failure to relay information about test results pending when patients are discharged from the hospital may pose an important patient-safety problem. Few data are available on the epidemiology of test results pending at discharge or on physician awareness of these results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and physician awareness of potentially actionable laboratory and radiologic test results returning after hospital discharge. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two tertiary care academic hospitals. PATIENTS: 2644 consecutive patients discharged from hospitalist services from February to June 2004. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcomes were the prevalence and characteristics of potentially actionable test results returning after hospital discharge, awareness of these results by inpatient and primary care physicians, and satisfaction of inpatient physicians with current systems for follow-up on test results. The authors prospectively collected data on test results pending at the time of discharge and, as results returned after discharge, surveyed hospitalists, junior residents, and primary care physicians about those results that were potentially actionable according to a physician-reviewer. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients (41%) had 2033 test results return after discharge. Of these results, 191 (9.4% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]) were potentially actionable. Surveys were sent regarding 155 results, and 105 responses were returned. Of the 105 results in the surveys with responses, physicians had been unaware of 65 (61.6% [CI, 51.3% to 70.9%]); of these 65, they agreed with physician-reviewers that 24 (37.1% [CI, 25.7% to 50.2%]) were actionable and 8 (12.6% [CI, 6.4% to 23.3%]) required urgent action. Inpatient physicians were dissatisfied with their systems for following up on test results returning after discharge. LIMITATIONS: The authors were unable to determine whether physicians' lack of awareness of test results returning after discharge was associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients are discharged from hospitals with test results still pending, and physicians are often unaware of potentially actionable test results returning after discharge. Further work is needed to design better follow-up systems for test results returning after hospital discharge.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗
PubMed2005

A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system. DESIGN: We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD. We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care (based on five measures) and overall CAD care (based on four measures). We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system. RESULTS: Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low. While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.67) and CAD (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55), the impact of individual reminders was variable. A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD. The majority of physicians (76%) thought that reminders improved quality of care. CONCLUSION: An integrated electronic reminder system resulted in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD. These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2005

Fumbled handoffs: one dropped ball after another.

Missed follow-up of abnormal test results and resultant delays in diagnosis is a safety issue that is gaining increasing attention. Despite increases in the numbers and types of available diagnostic tests, current systems in health care do not reliably ensure that test results are received and acted upon by ordering physicians. This article examines the case of a patient whose diagnosis of tuberculosis was substantially delayed because of systems problems, including poor continuity (with multiple-provider involvement), lack of communication of test results and other clinical information, and several handoffs. Strategies to ensure adequate communication of critical information and follow-up of test results are discussed, such as explicit criteria for communication of abnormal results, test-tracking systems for ordering providers, and use of information technologies.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Patient-reported medication symptoms in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence and character of medication-related symptoms in primary care and their relationship to adverse drug events (ADEs) or about factors that affect patient-physician communication regarding medication symptoms. METHODS: The study included 661 patients who received prescriptions from physicians at 4 adult primary care practices. We interviewed patients 2 weeks and 3 months after the index visit, reviewed patients' medical records, and surveyed physicians whose patients identified medication-related symptoms. Physician reviewers determined whether medication symptoms constituted true ADEs. We used multivariable regression to examine factors associated with patients' decision to discuss symptoms with a physician and with physicians' decision to alter therapy. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients identified 286 medication-related symptoms but discussed only 196 (69%) with their physicians. Physicians changed therapy in response to 76% of reported symptoms. Patients' failure to discuss 90 medication symptoms resulted in 19 (21%) ameliorable and 2 (2%) preventable ADEs. Physicians' failure to change therapy in 48 cases resulted in 31 (65%) ameliorable ADEs. In multivariable analyses, patients who took more medications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.08; P<.001) and had multiple medication allergies (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.03-1.11; P = .001) were more likely to discuss symptoms. Male physicians (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.26; P = .002) and physicians at 2 practices were more likely to change therapy (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.17-1.28; P<.001; and OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.24; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians may be able to reduce the duration and/or the severity of many ADEs by eliciting and addressing patients' medication symptoms.

Adult↗