Cited by 214Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Contextual Errors and Failures in Individualizing Patient Care

Weiner, Saul J., Schwartz, Alan, Weaver, Frances, Goldberg, Julie, Yudkowsky, Rachel, Sharma, Gunjan, Binns-Calvey, Amy, Preyss, Ben +4 more·2010·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A contextual error occurs when a physician overlooks elements of a patient's environment or behavior that are essential to planning appropriate care. In contrast to biomedical errors, which are not patient-specific, contextual errors represent a failure to individualize care. OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency and circumstances under which physicians probe contextual and biomedical red flags and avoid treatment error by incorporating what they learn from these probes. DESIGN: An incomplete randomized block design in which unannounced, standardized patients visited 111 internal medicine attending physicians between April 2007 and April 2009 and presented variants of 4 scenarios. In all scenarios, patients presented both a contextual and a biomedical red flag. Responses to probing about flags varied in whether they revealed an underlying complicating biomedical or contextual factor (or both) that would lead to errors in management if overlooked. SETTING: 14 practices, including 2 academic clinics, 2 community-based primary care networks with multiple sites, a core safety net provider, and 3 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were the proportion of visits in which physicians probed for contextual and biomedical factors in response to hints or red flags and the proportion of visits that resulted in error-free treatment plans. RESULTS: Physicians probed fewer contextual red flags (51%) than biomedical red flags (63%). Probing for contextual or biomedical information in response to red flags was usually necessary but not sufficient for an error-free plan of care. Physicians provided error-free care in 73% of the uncomplicated encounters, 38% of the biomedically complicated encounters, 22% of the contextually complicated encounters, and 9% of the combined biomedically and contextually complicated encounters. LIMITATIONS: Only 4 case scenarios were used. The study assessed physicians' propensity to make errors when every encounter provided an opportunity to do so and did not measure actual error rates that occur in primary care settings because of inattention to context. CONCLUSION: Inattention to contextual information, such as a patient's transportation needs, economic situation, or caretaker responsibilities, can lead to contextual error, which is not currently measured in assessments of physician performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-153-2-201007200-00002

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weiner, S. J., Schwartz, A., Weaver, F., Goldberg, J., Yudkowsky, R., Sharma, G., Binns-Calvey, A., Preyss, B., M. Schapira, M., Persell, S. D., Jacobs, E., & Abrams, R. I.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • From Veterans Affairs Center for the Management of Complex Chronic Care, University of Illinois at Chicago, Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital, and Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; Edward Hines Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Illinois; and Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2010-07-20
Volume
153
Issue
2
Pages
69-75
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2129404566
Cited by
214
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
FWCI
13.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Annals of Internal Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
contextual errors, individualized care, red flags, treatment errors, patient context, socioeconomic factors, transportation needs, primary care, patient safety, physician performance assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Internal Medicine, Male, Medical History Taking, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Logistic Models, Patient Simulation, Patient-Centered Care, Medical Errors

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