↓ Skip to main content

Missed diagnostic opportunities and English general practice: a study to determine their incidence, confounding and contributing factors and potential impact on patients through retrospective review…

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Missed diagnostic opportunities and English general practice: a study to determine their incidence, confounding and contributing factors and potential impact on patients through retrospective review of electronic medical records
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0296-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Hardeep Singh, David Reeves, Jill Stocks, Morris Rebecca, Aneez Esmail, Stephen Campbell, Carl de Wet

Abstract

Patient safety research has focused largely on hospital settings despite the fact that in many countries, the majority of patient contacts are in primary care. The knowledge base about patient safety in primary care is developing but sparse and diagnostic error is a relatively understudied and an unmeasured area of patient safety. Diagnostic error rates vary according to how 'error' is defined but one suggested hallmark is clear evidence of 'missed opportunity' (MDOs) makes a correct or timely diagnosis to prevent them. While there is no agreed definition or method of measuring MDOs, retrospective manual chart or patient record reviews are a 'gold standard'. This study protocol aims to (1) determine the incidence of MDOs in English general practice, (2) identify the confounding and contributing factors that lead to MDOs and (3) determine the (potential) impact of the detected MDOs on patients. We plan to conduct a two-phase retrospective review of electronic health records in the Greater Manchester (GM) area of the UK. In the first phase, clinician reviewers will calibrate their performance in identifying and assessing MDOs against a gold standard 'primary reviewer' through the use of 'double' reviews of records. The findings will enable a preliminary estimate of the incidence of MDOs in general practice, which will be used to calculate the number of records to be reviewed in the second phase in order to estimate the true incidence of MDO in general practice. A sample of 15 general practices is required for phase 1 and up to 35 practices for phase 2. In each practice, the sample will consist of 100 patients aged ≥18 years on 1 April 2013 who have attended a face-to-face 'index consultation' between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015. The index consultation will be selected randomly from each unique patient record, occurring between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. There are no reliable estimates of safety problems related to diagnosis in English general practice. This study will lay the foundation for safety improvements in this area by providing a more reliable estimate of MDOs, their impact and their contributory factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Ecuador 1 2%
Unknown 59 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 5 8%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,643,233
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#745
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,788
of 263,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#17
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.