4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Process of Care Failures in Breast Cancer Diagnosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 702-709

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-009-0982-0

关键词

breast cancer; diagnostic errors; medical errors; quality of health care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Process of care failures may contribute to diagnostic errors in breast cancer care. To identify patient- and provider-related process of care failures in breast cancer screening and follow-up in a non-claims-based cohort. Retrospective chart review of a cohort of patients referred to two Boston cancer centers with new breast cancer diagnoses between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2004. We identified 2,275 women who reported a parts per thousand yen90 days between symptom onset and breast cancer diagnosis or presentation with at least stage II disease. We then selected the 340 (14.9%) whose physicians shared an electronic medical record. We excluded 238 subjects whose records were insufficient for review, yielding a final cohort of 102 patients. None We tabulated the number and types of process of care failures and examined risk factors using bivariate analyses and multivariable Poisson regression. Twenty-six of 102 patients experienced a parts per thousand yen1 process of care failure. The most common failures occurred when physicians failed to perform an adequate physical examination, when patients failed to seek care, and when diagnostic or laboratory tests were ordered but patients failed to complete them. Failures were attributed in similar numbers to provider- and patient-related factors (n = 30 vs. n = 25, respectively). Process of care failures were more likely when the patient's primary care physician was male (IRR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 6.5) and when the patient was non-white (IRR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.7). Process failures were common in this patient cohort, with both clinicians and patients contributing to breakdowns in the diagnostic process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据