Though we’ve been
writing about unintended consequences of healthcare IT since 2007 (see the list
of prior columns at the end of today’s column), such have really attracted
widespread attention in the last couple years. In our January 2013 What's New
in the Patient Safety World column “More
IT Unintended Consequences” we noted important contributions from the
Institute of Medicine (IOM
2011) and the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority (Spannon
2012) addressing patient
safety issues arising from EHR’s. And in 2012 the ONC (Office of the National Coordinator for Health
IT) released its proposed its Health
IT Patient Safety Action and Surveillance Plan (ONC
2012), designed to help provide
necessary data through reporting adverse event for developers, providers,
researchers and policymakers to improve the safety of health IT and make care
safer.
In 2014 the Office
of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology issued the
“SAFER” guides that identify
recommended practices to optimize the safety and safe use of EHRs (ONC 2014). Then in 2015
The Joint Commission issued Sentinel Event Alert #54 on “Safe use of health
information technology” (TJC 2015).
Both drew attention to the many ways in which healthcare IT-related issues have
been associated with adverse patient outcomes.
An excellent contribution on patient safety problems related
to healthcare information technology (IT) was recently published (Graber
2015). Graber and colleagues culled 248 cases of malpractice claims related
to healthcare IT from the large CRICO database over the period 2012-2014.
Because this is a malpractice database the results are obviously biased towards
cases with more serious adverse outcomes. So we cannot quantify the incidence
of harm related to healthcare IT issues nor the overall likelihood of harm as a
result of healthcare IT issues. Nevertheless, this study demonstrates that
there are indeed cases of harm related to healthcare IT issues and has many
valuable lessons.
To the 248 cases they applied their proprietary taxonomy of
15 sociotechnical category codes to determine which IT issue categories were
most likely to be associated with malpractice claims. Not surprisingly, they
found that cases spanned the categories and no one category stuck out as being
most vulnerable. Rather the clinical context in which they occurred seemed to
be more important.
Of the cases, 146 occurred in the ambulatory setting and the
rest in inpatient or ER settings. Lumping them into 2 major categories of
contributing factors, they found user-related issues accounted for 63% and
system-related IT issues in 58% (many cases had contributing factors from both
major categories). Medication-related issues (31%), diagnostic errors (28%),
and errors related to treatment (31%) accounted for 90% of the claims. Over 80%
of claims in all settings had harm of medium or high severity. Fatal outcomes
occurred in 18% of the ambulatory claims and 39% in the ER or inpatient
settings.
In the ambulatory setting one contributing factor category
did stand out: issues related to hybrid
record systems. That should not come as a surprise. In our July 2009 What's
New in the Patient Safety World column “Failure
to Inform Patients of Clinically Significant Outpatient Test Results” we
noted a study (Casalino
2009) which showed those practices using a combination of paper and
electronic records (so called “partial EMR”) had higher rates of failure to
inform patients of abnormal test results than those having either a full EMR or
full paper-based systems. Perhaps in the current Graber study this reflects the
time when offices were just making the transition from paper-based systems to
electronic medical records. But, as pointed out by the authors, it also likely
means that future periods of transition (eg. system upgrades,
changes to new IT systems, etc.) are also likely to be vulnerable periods.
The real value of the Graber study, however, comes from the
case examples provided and the several recurrent themes they observed. We already
alluded to the theme of hybrid medical records being especially vulnerable. A
second theme relates to delays in diagnosis or treatment due to results or reports or actions that are
missing, delayed, misdirected, or incorrect. While we all know how easily
reports could get filed in the wrong patient chart in the paper-based world,
misdirection of reports and other information also occurs in the EHR world. Graber
and colleagues note that we need to better understand both the system- and
user-related causes of misrouting errors. Several of our prior columns have addressed the issue of test results “slipping
through the cracks”, resulting in delays or failure to diagnose and treat serious
conditions. Most recently, in our November 17, 2015 Patient Safety Tip of the
Week “Patient
Perspectives on Communication of Test Results” we noted that any acceptable system for tracking followup on patient tests needs to do the following:
You’d think that today’s sophisticated EMR’s would have
built in even better systems for tracking test results. But one big problem is
still lack of interoperability among various systems. Many reports still arrive
back at the office in paper format rather than an electronic format. Of course,
we can scan those paper reports into most EMR’s. Don’t forget: paper-based
reports always were vulnerable to the issue of two pages sticking together,
often resulting in a report being filed in the chart of the wrong patient. And
we’ve also pointed out the critical issue of test results coming back after a hospitalization
or ER visit that never get back to the primary physician because of lack of
interoperability (and lack of systems that ensure the hospital-based physicians
follow up with the primary physician).
Another theme in the Graber study was that, largely because
of cut-and-paste capabilities or
ability to pre-populate data,
incorrect information may be propagated in the medical record. For example,
importing a previous medication list might include medications the patient is
no longer taking. Or omission of a medication on a medication list may result
in continued omission of that medication in the future. They also emphasized
the well-known risks of overriding alerts and employing workarounds.
One overarching theme was overreliance on the EHR. We often assume that the information
contained in it is both complete and accurate.
And lack of some
functionality that should be expected of a computerized system is also a
theme. Examples given are failure to identify decimal point errors that result
in overdoses of medications, or failure to identify an inappropriate order for
potassium in a patient already hyperkalemic.
The Graber study includes some design issues as well. As an example they note a complaint field in
the EHR was too small to include the full complaint causing entry of “epigastric
pain” rather than “sudden onset of chest pains with burning epigastric pain,
some relief with antacid” in a patient who subsequently experienced a cardiac
event.
Many of the issues addressed in the Graber study are
reflected in a new guideline issued by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) for EHR standardization (Lowry 2015).
That guideline identifies 3 critical use risk areas:
They note that lack of standardization may result in
ordering or recording information in the wrong patient chart. Our Patient Safety Tips of the Week for May
20, 2008 “CPOE
Unintended Consequences – Are Wrong Patient Errors More Common?” and July
17, 2012 “More
on Wrong-Patient CPOE” discussed many of the reasons such errors occur and
noted some of the tools that have been used to minimize the chances of such
occurring. However, standardization would be very important in helping prevent
such errors. NIST also notes that information is often fragmented and stored in
different locations in the EHR, leading to difficulty finding it. In addition,
some information is verbal or on paper or white boards and does not get input
into the EHR. Moreover, context is typically lacking. Navigation issues,
scrolling issues, etc. also interfere with finding of information. Other issues
include how to identify draft vs. final versions and how changes are made and
identified as such. Unnecessary duplication of data input (eg.
height and weight) was noted as an issue (though note our caveats in our
December 8, 2015 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “Danger
of Inaccurate Weights in Stroke Care”).
Two “use cases”, one for the inpatient setting and one for
the outpatient setting, are provided in the NIST guideline for validation and usability
testing.
The SAFER Guides (ONC 2014) also provide
excellent recommendations regarding issues such as ensuring correct patient
identification, test tracking and followup, CPOE and
clinical decision support, communication, and several system and organizational
issues. These come with checklist-style self-assessment tools and recommendations
on how your organization can go about assessing and addressing these
vulnerabilities. These are excellent tools.
The EHR and other computerized tools are clearly here to
stay and offer tremendous potential to improve patient safety. We have yet to
realize their full potential. Taking steps to correct the many unintended
consequences we have seen will help us realize that potential. These resources
and many we’ve described in our previous columns are a step in the right
direction.
See some of our other
Patient Safety Tip of the Week columns dealing with unintended consequences of
technology and other healthcare IT issues:
References:
Institute of Medicine (IOM). Health IT and Patient Safety:
Building Safer Systems for Better Care. November 8, 2011
Spannon E, Marella
WM. The Role of Electronic Health Record in Patient Safety Events. Pa Patient Saf Advis 2012; 9(4): 113-121
http://patientsafetyauthority.org/ADVISORIES/AdvisoryLibrary/2012/Dec;9%284%29/Pages/113.aspx
ONC (Office of the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology). Health IT Patient Safety Action and Surveillance Plan.
December 21, 2012
http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/health-it-and-patient-safety
ONC (Office of the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology). SAFER GUIDES—Safety
Assurance Factors for EHR Resilience. 2014
https://www.healthit.gov/safer/safer-guides
The Joint Commission. Sentinel Event Alert #54. Safe use of
health information technology. March 31, 2015
http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/SEA_54.pdf
Graber ML, Siegal D, Riah H, et al. Electronic Health Record-Related Events in
Medical Malpractice Claims. Journal of Patient Safety 2015; Published Ahead-of-Print
November 6, 2015
Casalino LP, Dunham D, Chin MH et
al. Frequency of Failure to Inform Patients of Clinically Significant
Outpatient Test Results. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(12):1123-1129
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=415120
Lowry SZ, Ramaiah M, Taylor S, et
al. NISTIR 7804-1. Technical Evaluation, Testing, and Validation of the
Usability of Electronic Health Records: Empirically Based Use Cases for
Validating Safety-Enhanced Usability and Guidelines for Standardization.
National Institute of Standards and Technology 2015
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2015/NIST.IR.7804-1.pdf
Print “PDF
version”
http://www.patientsafetysolutions.com/