Documentation-related diagnostic safety concerns in primary care: a structured medical record review of 1116 patient records.

IF 6.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rita Fernholm, Caroline Kappelin, Elinor Nemlander
{"title":"Documentation-related diagnostic safety concerns in primary care: a structured medical record review of 1116 patient records.","authors":"Rita Fernholm, Caroline Kappelin, Elinor Nemlander","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2026-020701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnostic safety concerns are among the most consequential yet least visible threats to patient safety in primary care. Non-specific symptoms potentially associated with cancer represent a high-risk context, where delayed diagnosis may have serious consequences despite a low probability of serious disease.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify diagnostic safety concerns and areas for improvement in assessing patients presenting with non-specific symptoms in primary care.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A structured medical record review combining quantitative assessment and qualitative thematic analysis was conducted in Region Stockholm, Sweden. In a region-wide quality improvement initiative, 27 primary care centres reviewed 1116 medical records of patients aged 40-75 years with selected ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) codes recorded in 2023. Reviews used a structured template addressing diagnostic reasoning, data collection and healthcare use. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 358 records (32%) had at least one diagnostic safety concern. Absence of documentation of differential diagnostic reasoning was identified in 21% of records, insufficient data collection in 18% and failure to consider alternative diagnoses in 12%; these concerns co-occurred in 13% of records. Four themes were identified: invisible diagnostic reasoning, narrow diagnostic framing, failure to re-evaluate, and fragmented care and patient complexity as a cross-cutting contextual influence on diagnostic vulnerabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients presenting with non-specific symptoms potentially associated with cancer, documentation-related diagnostic safety concerns arose from whether and how diagnostic reasoning was documented, revisited and communicated across encounters. While the findings support safety-netting and diagnostic re-evaluation, they also highlight vulnerabilities including negative test results functioning as diagnostic endpoints and care fragmentation undermining diagnostic progression. Structured record review linked to reflective learning may help address these patterns in practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2026-020701","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic safety concerns are among the most consequential yet least visible threats to patient safety in primary care. Non-specific symptoms potentially associated with cancer represent a high-risk context, where delayed diagnosis may have serious consequences despite a low probability of serious disease.

Objective: To identify diagnostic safety concerns and areas for improvement in assessing patients presenting with non-specific symptoms in primary care.

Method: A structured medical record review combining quantitative assessment and qualitative thematic analysis was conducted in Region Stockholm, Sweden. In a region-wide quality improvement initiative, 27 primary care centres reviewed 1116 medical records of patients aged 40-75 years with selected ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) codes recorded in 2023. Reviews used a structured template addressing diagnostic reasoning, data collection and healthcare use. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Overall, 358 records (32%) had at least one diagnostic safety concern. Absence of documentation of differential diagnostic reasoning was identified in 21% of records, insufficient data collection in 18% and failure to consider alternative diagnoses in 12%; these concerns co-occurred in 13% of records. Four themes were identified: invisible diagnostic reasoning, narrow diagnostic framing, failure to re-evaluate, and fragmented care and patient complexity as a cross-cutting contextual influence on diagnostic vulnerabilities.

Conclusion: Among patients presenting with non-specific symptoms potentially associated with cancer, documentation-related diagnostic safety concerns arose from whether and how diagnostic reasoning was documented, revisited and communicated across encounters. While the findings support safety-netting and diagnostic re-evaluation, they also highlight vulnerabilities including negative test results functioning as diagnostic endpoints and care fragmentation undermining diagnostic progression. Structured record review linked to reflective learning may help address these patterns in practice.

初级保健中与文件相关的诊断安全问题:对1116例患者记录的结构化医疗记录审查
背景:诊断安全问题是对初级保健患者安全最重要但最不明显的威胁之一。可能与癌症相关的非特异性症状是一种高风险情况,在这种情况下,尽管发生严重疾病的可能性很低,但延迟诊断可能会产生严重后果。目的:确定在初级保健中评估非特异性症状患者的诊断安全性问题和需要改进的领域。方法:对瑞典斯德哥尔摩地区的病案进行定量评估与定性专题分析相结合的结构化审查。在一项区域范围的质量改进倡议中,27个初级保健中心审查了1116名40-75岁患者的医疗记录,其中包括2023年记录的ICD-10(国际疾病分类,第十次修订)代码。审查使用结构化模板处理诊断推理、数据收集和医疗保健使用。定量数据采用描述性分析,定性数据采用反身性主题分析。结果:总体而言,358例(32%)至少存在一项诊断安全性问题。21%的记录缺乏鉴别诊断推理的文件,18%的记录数据收集不足,12%的记录未能考虑替代诊断;这些问题在13%的记录中同时出现。确定了四个主题:不可见的诊断推理、狭隘的诊断框架、未能重新评估、分散的护理和患者复杂性作为对诊断脆弱性的跨领域上下文影响。结论:在表现出可能与癌症相关的非特异性症状的患者中,诊断推理是否以及如何被记录、重访和沟通引起了与文件相关的诊断安全性问题。虽然研究结果支持安全网和诊断重新评估,但它们也强调了脆弱性,包括作为诊断终点的阴性测试结果和阻碍诊断进展的护理碎片化。与反思性学习相联系的结构化记录审查可能有助于在实践中解决这些模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书