Institute of Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Graber M, Trowbridge R, Myers J, Umscheid C, Strull W, Kanter M. The next organizational challenge: finding and addressing diagnostic error. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2014;40:102–10.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar U, Bonacum D, Strull W, Spitzmueller C, Jin N, Lopez A, et al. Challenges of making a diagnosis in the outpatient setting: a multi-site survey of primary care physicians. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:641–8.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Sarkar U, Simchowitz B, Bonacum D, Strull W, Lopez A, Rotteau L, et al. A qualitative analysis of physician perspectives on missed and delayed outpatient diagnosis: the focus on system-related factors. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2014;40:461–70.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Trowbridge R, Salvador D, Roy M, Botler J. A restructured root cause analysis process for diagnostic error. Abstract – 4th International Diagnostic Error in Medicine Conference, Chicago, IL, 2011.Google Scholar
Croskerry P. The cognitive autopsy. Patient safety in emergency medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2009:302–7.Google Scholar
National Patient Safety Foundation. RCA2: Improving root cause analyses and actions to prevent harm, 2016. Available at: http://wwwnpsforg/?page=RCA2.
National Patient Safety Foundation at the AMA. Public opinion of patient safety issues: research findings, 1997. Available at: https://www.npsf.org/resource/.../Public_Opinion_of_Patient_Safety_Issues.pdf.
VHA Inc. Consumer demand for clinical quality; the giant awakens. Vol 3, 2000. Referenced at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11330225.
Kaiser Family Foundation. National survey on national survey on consumers’ experiences with patient safety and quality information, 2004. Available at: http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/national-survey-on-consumers-experiences-with-patient/.
Haskell H. Survey of victims of medical harm. Available at: wwwadvocatedirectoryorg.
Southwick F, Cranley M, Hallisy J. A patient-initiated voluntary online survey of adverse medical events: the perspective of 696 injured patients and families. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:620–9.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harvard School of Public Health. The public’s views on medical error in Massachusetts, 2014. Available at: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/.../MA-Patient-Safety-Report-HORP.pdf.
Isabel Medical Charity. Misdiagnosis is an overlooked and growing patient safety issue; YouGov Survey, 2006. Available at: http://wwwisabelhealthcarecom/pdf/USsurveyrelease-Finalpdf.
MacDonald OW, Quantia MD. Physician perspectives on preventing diagnostic errors, 2011. Available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO6fPZ3YjTAhUChlQKHTg_AKUQFgghMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quantiamd.com%2Fq-qcp%2FQuantiaMD_PreventingDiagnosticErrors_Whitepaper_1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH_0YCUfOXe4mtPksY8g11-x1eM3A.
Best Doctors, Inc. Physican’s perspective survey; measuring physician attitudes on diagnostic error and accuracy, 2012. Available at: https://bestdoctors.com/.
Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, Murff HJ, Karson AS, Bates DW. I wish I had seen this test result earlier! Dissatisfaction with test result management in primary care. Arch Int Med 2004;164:2223–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Singh H, Spitzmueller C, Peterson N, Sawhney M, SIttig D. Information overload and missed test results in electronic health record-based settings. JAMA Internal Med 2013;173:702–4.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newman-Toker D, McDonald K, Meltzer D. How much diagnostic safety can we afford and how should we decide? A health economics perspective. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(Suppl 2):ii11–20.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2017-06-05
Published in Print: 2017-06-27
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.