The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
December 2022 (Volume 100)
Quarterly Article
Sigall K. Bell
Fabienne Bourgeois
Joe Dong
Alex Gillespie
Long H. Ngo
Tom W. Reader
Eric J. Thomas
Catherine M. DesRoches
Oct 30, 2024
Oct 23, 2024
Oct 4, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Patients and families can identify clinically relevant errors, including “blindspots”—safety hazards that are difficult for clinicians or organizations to see.
Health information transparency, including patient access to electronic visit notes, now federally mandated in the US and the subject of policy debate worldwide, creates a new opportunity to engage patients in diagnostic safety. However, not all patients access notes.
Patient identification of blindspots in their notes underscores the need to systematically and equitably engage willing patients in safety, promote patient “good catches,” and establish routine systems for patient feedback to help avoid preventable diagnostic errors and delays.
Context: Policy shifts toward health information transparency provide a new opportunity for patients to contribute to diagnostic safety. We investigated whether sharing clinical notes with patients can support identification of “diagnostic safety blindspots”—potentially consequential breakdowns in the diagnostic process that may be difficult for clinical staff to observe.
Method: We used mixed methods to analyze patient-reported ambulatory documentation errors among 22,889 patients at three US health care centers who read ≥ 1 visit note(s). We identified blindspots by tailoring a previously established taxonomy. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with blindspot identification.
Findings: 774 patients reported a total of 962 blindspots in 4 categories: (1) diagnostic misalignments (n = 421, 43.8%), including inaccurate symptoms or histories and failures or delay in diagnosis; (2) errors of omission (38.1%) including missed main concerns or next steps, and failure to listen to patients; (3) problems occurring outside visits (14.3%) such as tests, referrals, or appointment access; and (4) multiple low-level problems (3.7%) cascading into diagnostic breakdowns. Many patients acted on the blindspots they identified, resulting in “good catches” that may prevent potential negative consequences. Older, female, sicker, unemployed or disabled patients, or those who work in health care were more likely to identify a blindspot. Individuals reporting less formal education; those self-identifying as Black, Asian, other, or multiple races; and participants who deferred decision-making to providers were less likely to report a blindspot.
Conclusion: Patients who read notes have unique insight about potential errors in their medical records that could impact diagnostic reasoning but may not be known to clinicians—underscoring a critical role for patients in diagnostic safety and organizational learning. From a policy standpoint, organizations should encourage patient review of visit notes, build systems to track patient reported blindspots, and promote equity in note access and blindspot reporting.
READ THE FULL TEXT ON WILEY ONLINE
