Management-changing errors in the recall of radiologic results - a pilot study.

AIM: To evaluate the occurrence of alterations to diagnostic information from radiological studies, which are altered by person-to-person communication and/or faulty recall, and whether they affect patient management MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured telephone survey was conducted at a large tertiary care medical centre of house staff managing inpatients who had undergone chest, abdominal, or pelvic computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and remained in the hospital at least 2 days later. Fifty-six physicians were surveyed regarding 98 patient cases. Each physician was asked how he or she first became aware of the results of the study. Each was then asked to recall the substance of radiological interpretation and to compare it with the radiology report. Each was then asked to assess the level of difference between the interpretations and whether management was affected. Results were correlated with the route by which interviewees became aware of the report, the report length, and whether the managing service was medical or surgical. RESULTS: In nearly 15% (14/98) of cases, differences between the recalled and official results were such that patient management could have been (11.2%) or had already been affected (3.1%). There was no significant correlation between errors and either the route of report communication or the report length. CONCLUSION: There was a substantial rate of error in the recall and/or transmission of diagnostic radiological information, which was sufficiently severe to affect patient management.

Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. 1991.

BACKGROUND: As part of an interdisciplinary study of medical injury and malpractice litigation, we estimated the incidence of adverse events, defined as injuries caused by medical management, and of the subgroup of such injuries that resulted from negligent or substandard care. METHODS: We reviewed 30121 randomly selected records from 51 randomly selected acute care, non-psychiatric hospitals in New York State in 1984. We then developed population estimates of injuries and computed rates according to the age and sex of the patients as well as the specialties of the physicians. RESULTS: Adverse events occurred in 3.7% of the hospitalizations (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 4.2), and 27.6% of the adverse events were due to negligence (95% confidence interval 22.5 to 32.6). Although 70.5% of the adverse events gave rise to disability lasting less than 6 months, 2.6% caused permanently disabling injuries and 13.6% led to death. The percentage of adverse events attributable to negligence increased in the categories of more severe injuries (Wald test chi(2) = 21.04, p<0.0001). Using weighted totals we estimated that among the 2671863 patients discharged from New York hospitals in 1984 there were 98609 adverse events and 27179 adverse events involving negligence. Rates of adverse events rose with age (p<0.0001). The percentage of adverse events due to negligence was markedly higher among the elderly (p<0.01). There were significant differences in rates of adverse events among categories of clinical specialties (p<0.0001), but no differences in the percentage due to negligence. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial amount of injury to patients from medical management, and many injuries are the result of substandard care.

Paying for graduate medical education: the debate goes on.

The debate over Medicare payments for graduate medical education has been conducted under the premise that such payments cover the added costs of training. Standard economic theory suggests that residents bear the costs of their training, implying that the additional costs of teaching hospitals are not attributable to training per se but to some combination of a different patient care product, unmeasured case-mix differences, and the costs of clinical research. As a result, payment for the additional patient care costs at teaching hospitals should come from the Medicare trust fund; any subsidies for training should come from general revenues.

The prevalence of formal risk adjustment in health plan purchasing.

This paper describes the prevalence of formal risk adjustment of payments made to health plans by Medicare, Medicaid, state governments, and private payers. In this paper, 'formal risk adjustment" is defined as the adjustment of premiums paid to health plans based on individual-level diagnostic or demographic information. We find that formal risk adjustment is used for about one-fifth of all enrollees in capitated health plans. While the Medicare and Medicaid programs rely on formal risk adjustment for virtually all their health plan enrollees, the practice is used for only about 1% of privately insured health plan enrollees. Ourfindings raise the question of why regulators have adopted formal risk adjustment, but private purchasers for the most part have not.

Does managed care mean more hassle for physicians?

Using the results of a 1995 nationally representative survey of physicians, this paper examines the relationship between exposure to managed care and resources expended by physicians on administrative and insurance matters. Our measures of managed care exposure are the degree to which a physician experiences a variety of managed care techniques (i.e., utilization review, capitation payment, restricted panels, gatekeepers, discounted fees, compensation links to utilization measures, profiling, protocols, and salary payment). Physicians report expending, on average, three hours per week on insurance-related matters and 4.8 hours per week on administration. Although managed care techniques affect administrative and insurance-related burdens, the direction of that effect varies according to the form that managed care exposure takes. With the exception of being salaried, none of our variables has an economically significant effect on physicians' administrative/insurance burdens, even at the outer-most edge of the 95% confidence interval. Overall, our findings contradict the widely held notion that managed care dramatically raises the administrative and insurance burden of physicians.