Cited by 10Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsElectronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Developing, Pilot Testing, and Refining Requirements for 3 EHR-Integrated Interventions to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Acute Care: A User-Centered Approach

Open access
Garber, Alison, Garabedian, Pamela, Wu, Lindsey, Lam, Alyssa, Malik, Maria, Fraser, Hannah, Bersani, Kerrin, Piniella, Nicholas +7 more·2023·JAMIA Open

Abstract

Objective: To describe a user-centered approach to develop, pilot test, and refine requirements for 3 electronic health record (EHR)-integrated interventions that target key diagnostic process failures in hospitalized patients. Materials and Methods: Three interventions were prioritized for development: a Diagnostic Safety Column (DSC) within an EHR-integrated dashboard to identify at-risk patients; a Diagnostic Time-Out (DTO) for clinicians to reassess the working diagnosis; and a Patient Diagnosis Questionnaire (PDQ) to gather patient concerns about the diagnostic process. Initial requirements were refined from analysis of test cases with elevated risk predicted by DSC logic compared to risk perceived by a clinician working group; DTO testing sessions with clinicians; PDQ responses from patients; and focus groups with clinicians and patient advisors using storyboarding to model the integrated interventions. Mixed methods analysis of participant responses was used to identify final requirements and potential implementation barriers. Results: Final requirements from analysis of 10 test cases predicted by the DSC, 18 clinician DTO participants, and 39 PDQ responses included the following: DSC configurable parameters (variables, weights) to adjust baseline risk estimates in real-time based on new clinical data collected during hospitalization; more concise DTO wording and flexibility for clinicians to conduct the DTO with or without the patient present; and integration of PDQ responses into the DSC to ensure closed-looped communication with clinicians. Analysis of focus groups confirmed that tight integration of the interventions with the EHR would be necessary to prompt clinicians to reconsider the working diagnosis in cases with elevated diagnostic error (DE) risk or uncertainty. Potential implementation barriers included alert fatigue and distrust of the risk algorithm (DSC); time constraints, redundancies, and concerns about disclosing uncertainty to patients (DTO); and patient disagreement with the care team’s diagnosis (PDQ). Discussion: A user-centered approach led to evolution of requirements for 3 interventions targeting key diagnostic process failures in hospitalized patients at risk for DE. Conclusions: We identify challenges and offer lessons from our user-centered design process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad031

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inpatient and acute care settings commonly use inpatient diagnostic error triggers and EHR-based interventions, whereas outpatient and primary care settings rely more on population risk-stratification tools and ambulatory e-triggers targeting missed follow-up or unexpected ED visits.

    “Inpatient and acute care settings commonly use inpatient diagnostic error triggers [375] and EHR-based interventions [376], whereas outpatient and primary care settings rely more on population risk-stratification tools [377] and ambulatory e-triggers targeting missed follow-up or unexpected ED visits [378].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [376]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garber, A., Garabedian, P., Wu, L., Lam, A., Malik, M., Fraser, H., Bersani, K., Piniella, N., Motta-Calderon, D., Rozenblum, R., Schnock, K., Griffin, J., Schnipper, J. L., Bates, D. W., & Dalal, A. K.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Dalal, Anuj K
Venue
JAMIA Open
Published
2023-04-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
ooad031-ooad031
ISSN
2574-2531 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4376642305
Cited by
10
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMIA Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
AHRQ (R18-HS026613)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diagnostic errors, diagnostic safety, electronic health records, user-centered design, high-risk patient identification, risk algorithm, alarm fatigue, patient-provider communication, implementation barriers, hospitalized patients, acute care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review