David Gary C, Chand Donald, Sankaranarayanan Balaji
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2014;27(2):99-110. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-06-2012-0056.
The purpose of the paper is to determine the instance of errors made in physician dictation of medical records.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Purposive sampling method was employed to select medical transcriptionists (MTs) as "experts" to identify the frequency and types of medical errors in dictation files. Seventy-nine MTs examined 2,391 dictation files during one standard work day, and used a common template to record errors.
The results demonstrated that on the average, on the order of 315,000 errors in one million dictations were surfaced. This shows that medical errors occur in dictation, and quality assurance measures are needed in dealing with those errors.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: There was no potential for inter-coder reliability and confirming the error codes assigned by individual MTs. This study only examined the presence of errors in the dictation-transcription model. Finally, the project was done with the cooperation of MTSOs and transcription industry organizations.
Anecdotal evidence points to the belief that records created directly by physicians alone will have fewer errors and thus be more accurate. This research demonstrates this is not necessarily the case when it comes to physician dictation. As a result, the place of quality assurance in the medical record production workflow needs to be carefully considered before implementing a "once-and-done" (i.e. physician-based) model of record creation.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: No other research has been published on the presence of errors or classification of errors in physician dictation. The paper questions the assumption that direct physician creation of medical records in the absence of secondary QA processes will result in higher quality documentation and fewer medical errors.
本文旨在确定医生在病历口述中出现错误的情况。
设计/方法/途径:采用目的抽样法,选择医学转录员(MTs)作为“专家”,以识别口述文件中医疗错误的频率和类型。79名医学转录员在一个标准工作日内检查了2391份口述文件,并使用通用模板记录错误。
结果表明,平均而言,每百万份口述中约有315000个错误被发现。这表明在口述过程中会出现医疗错误,处理这些错误需要质量保证措施。
研究局限性/启示:不存在编码员间信度的可能性,也无法确认单个医学转录员分配的错误代码。本研究仅考察了口述-转录模型中错误的存在情况。最后,该项目是在医学转录服务提供商(MTSOs)和转录行业组织的合作下完成的。
轶事证据表明,人们认为仅由医生直接创建的记录错误会更少,因此会更准确。本研究表明,在医生口述方面未必如此。因此,在实施“一劳永逸”(即基于医生)的记录创建模式之前,需要仔细考虑质量保证在病历制作工作流程中的地位。
原创性/价值:此前没有关于医生口述中错误存在情况或错误分类的其他研究发表。本文质疑了在没有二次质量保证流程的情况下,医生直接创建病历会带来更高质量的文档记录和更少医疗错误这一假设。