Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(04): 733-742
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788330
Research Article

Patient–Clinician Diagnostic Concordance upon Hospital Admission

Alyssa Lam
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Savanna Plombon
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Alison Garber
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Pamela Garabedian
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Ronen Rozenblum
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Jacqueline A. Griffin
3   Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Jeffrey L. Schnipper
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Stuart R. Lipsitz
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
David W. Bates
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Anuj K. Dalal
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations

Funding This study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Preview

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to pilot an application-based patient diagnostic questionnaire (PDQ) and assess the concordance of the admission diagnosis reported by the patient and entered by the clinician.

Methods Eligible patients completed the PDQ assessing patients' understanding of and confidence in the diagnosis 24 hours into hospitalization either independently or with assistance. Demographic data, the hospital principal problem upon admission, and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were retrieved from the electronic health record (EHR). Two physicians independently rated concordance between patient-reported diagnosis and clinician-entered principal problem as full, partial, or no. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographics for concordant (full) and nonconcordant (partial or no) outcome groups. Multivariable logistic regressions of PDQ questions and a priori selected EHR data as independent variables were conducted to predict nonconcordance.

Results A total of 157 (77.7%) questionnaires were completed by 202 participants; 77 (49.0%), 46 (29.3%), and 34 (21.7%) were rated fully concordant, partially concordant, and not concordant, respectively. Cohen's kappa for agreement on preconsensus ratings by independent reviewers was 0.81 (0.74, 0.88). In multivariable analyses, patient-reported lack of confidence and undifferentiated symptoms (ICD-10 “R-code”) for the principal problem were significantly associated with nonconcordance (partial or no concordance ratings) after adjusting for other PDQ questions (3.43 [1.30, 10.39], p = 0.02) and in a model using selected variables (4.02 [1.80, 9.55], p < 0.01), respectively.

Conclusion About one-half of patient-reported diagnoses were concordant with the clinician-entered diagnosis on admission. An ICD-10 “R-code” entered as the principal problem and patient-reported lack of confidence may predict patient–clinician nonconcordance early during hospitalization via this approach.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was reviewed and approved by the Mass General Brigham Human Research Committee.


Authors' Contributions

All authors have contributed sufficiently and meaningfully to the conception, design, and conduct of the study; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; and/or drafting, editing, and revising the manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 15 March 2024

Accepted: 16 June 2024

Article published online:
18 September 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany