Cited by 24Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Validating domains of patient contextual factors essential to preventing contextual errors: a qualitative study conducted at Chicago Area Veterans Health Administration sites

Open access
Binns-Calvey, Amy E., Malhiot, Alex, Kostovich, Carol T., LaVela, Sherri L., Stroupe, Kevin, Gerber, Ben S., Burkhart, Lisa, Weiner, Saul J. +1 more·2017·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Purpose: “Patient context” indicates patient circumstances and characteristics or states that are essential to address when planning patient care. Specific patient “contextual factors,” if overlooked, result in an inappropriate plan of care, a medical error termed a “contextual error.” The myriad contextual factors that constitute patient context have been grouped into broad domains to create a taxonomy of challenges to consider when planning care. This study sought to validate a previously identified list of contextual domains. Method: This qualitative study used directed content analysis. In 2014, 19 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) providers (84% female) and 49 patients (86% male) from two VA medical centers and four outpatient clinics in the Chicago area participated in semistructured interviews and focus groups. Topics included patient-specific, community, and resource-related factors that affect patients’ abilities to manage their care. Transcripts were analyzed with a previously identified list of contextual domains as a framework. Results: Analysis of responses revealed that patients and providers identified the same 10 domains previously published, plus 3 additional ones. Based on comments made by patients and providers, the authors created a revised list of 12 domains from themes that emerged. Six pertain to patient circumstances such as access to care and financial situation, and 6 to patient characteristics/states including skills, abilities, and knowledge. Conclusions: Contextual factors in patients’ lives may be essential to address for effective care planning. The rubric developed can serve as a “contextual differential” for clinicians to consider when addressing challenges patients face when planning their care.

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 · 10.1097/acm.0000000000001659

Cites

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?

  • The capacity of contextualized CDS to change outcomes is limited, to a varying degree, by the resources available to help patients and the contextual factor.

    “The capacity of contextualized CDS to change outcomes is limited, to a varying degree, by the resources available to help patients and the contextual factor.”

    From Effect of Electronic Health Record Clinical Decision Support on Contextualization of Care (2022) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Interpersonal/social support section (p. 2) asks how relationships and transportation affect patients’ health management, and Technology/Resources (p. 3) asks about technology use. Searches for contextualized clinical decision support, outcome changes, and limits imposed by available resources found no passage addressing the claimed relationship. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    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.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Binns-Calvey, A. E., Malhiot, A., Kostovich, C. T., LaVela, S. L., Stroupe, K., Gerber, B. S., Burkhart, L., Weiner, S. J., & Weaver, F. M.
Affiliations
  • A.E. Binns-Calveyis project manager, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, and research specialist, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2017-09
Volume
92
Issue
9
Pages
1287-1293
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2599571562
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
patient context, contextual factors, contextual errors, medical errors, care planning, patient-centered care, veterans, patient-provider communication, health care access, financial conditions, patient knowledge and skills, taxonomy validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chicago, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Focus Groups, Patient-Centered Care, Medical Errors, Qualitative Research, Veterans Health

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