viernes, 18 de abril de 2014

MMWR News Synopsis for April 17, 2014

MMWR News Synopsis for April 17, 2014



MMWR News Synopsis for April 17, 2014

MMWR – Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR News Synopsis for April 17, 2014
Click here for the full MMWR articles. If you have questions about these summaries, please contactmedia@cdc.gov.
1. Coccidioidomycosis Among Cast and Crew Members at an Outdoor Television Filming — California, 2012
Anita Gore
Deputy Director, Office of Public Affairs
California Department of Public Health
(916) 440-7259
anita.gore@cdph.ca.gov
Workers, employers, and medical providers should recognize that employees can be exposed to Valley Fever even if they are not directly engaged in soil disruptive work. In 2012, more than 4,000 Californians were diagnosed with Valley Fever, a potentially serious disease caused by inhaling fungal spores common in Central and Southern California. Occupationally acquired Valley Fever most often occurs in people whose work involves digging or working in soil, such as construction workers, military personnel, or archaeologists. However, this study highlights Valley Fever in a group of workers whose occupations do not typically put them at risk of Valley Fever exposure. —The study reports on several members of the cast and crew of a popular TV series who became ill shortly after filming outdoor scenes in Ventura County. Workers, employers, and medical providers should be aware that employees working outdoors in Coccidioides (a fungus that lives in soils)prevalent areas might be exposed to Valley Fever from recent soil disturbances or windy conditions, even if they are not working in the soil.
2. Blood Lead Levels Among Children Aged 1–5 Years — Zamfara State, Nigeria, June–July 2012
Much has been done to address the problems of lead exposure in Zamfara, Nigeria, since the lead poisoning crisis of 2010. New and safer processing techniques that control dust and residual ore wastes, a better understanding of potential exposure to lead contaminated foodstuffs, continued blood lead surveillance, chelation therapy when warranted and environmental cleanup of hazardous sites remain critical. Since 2010, Nigerian government officials and the international community have responded to childhood lead poisoning caused by the processing of lead-containing gold ore in Zamfara State, Nigeria. Widespread education, surveys of high-risk villages, testing and surveillance of blood lead levels (BLLs), medical treatment, and environmental clean-up have all been implemented. To evaluate the current prevalence of lead poisoning and dangerous work practices, a population-based assessment of children’s blood lead levels and ore processing techniques was conducted during June–July 2012. Unlike earlier studies, this assessment found few children in need of medical treatment, lower average BLLs, and less exposure of children to dangerous work practices. Although work remains, when these strategies are successfully implemented, a sustained reduction of blood lead levels in children is possible.
3. Incidence and Trends of Infection with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food — Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 Sites, 2006–2013
The partnership of state public health and community organizations can play an Progress in preventing foodborne illnesses has been limited. Salmonella infections decreased slightly in 2013 compared with the preceding 3 years, and are back to levels seen in 2006–2008. The frequency of most other infections tracked in Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) has not changed much at all; however, Vibrio infections increased in 2013. These findings highlight the need to continue to identify and address food safety gaps that can be targeted for action.Foodborne diseases continue to be an important public health problem in the United States. Progress in preventing these infections has been limited in recent years, as evidenced by a modest decrease in the incidence of Salmonella and an increase in incidence of Vibrio. FoodNet, a foodborne disease surveillance component of CDC's Emerging Infections Program, conducts surveillance in 10 U.S. sites for all laboratory-confirmed infections caused by selected pathogens transmitted commonly through food to help assess whether efforts to decrease illnesses are succeeding. This report describes 2013 surveillance data and trends since 2006; the information contributes to our understanding of the human health impact of foodborne diseases.
4. Concerns Regarding a New Culture Method for Borrelia burgdorferi Not Approved for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
Some tests for Lyme disease are not adequately validated and can be misleading to patients and health care providers. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a test that uses a novel culture method to identifyBorrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Published methods and results for this test were reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis and improper treatment of patients. This situation highlights the importance of FDA clearance/approval of diagnostic tests, which provides assurance that the test itself has adequate analytical and clinical validation and is safe and effective. CDC recommends that laboratory tests cleared by FDA be used to aid in the routine diagnosis of Lyme disease.
5. Notes from the Field
·         Assessment of Disease Exposures at an Annual Bat Festival — Idanre, Nigeria 
·         Increase in Vibrio parahaemolyticus Infections Associated with Consumption of Atlantic Coast Shellfish — 2013

News from NIAID-Supported Institutions

News from NIAID-Supported Institutions



Leading Research to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Infectious, Immunologic, and Allergic Diseases
NIAID News Twitter   NIAID Facebook   NIAID News Twitter   LinkedIn Icon
Visit us on the Web
Here’s your periodic update on News from NIAID-Supported Institutions. The following links will take you to the institution’s press release:
 
 
 
Rapid, Broad Countermeasures Sought Against Mystery Infections 
April 8, 2014—University of Washington

Disruption of VISTA Plays an Important Role in Regulating Immune Response 
April 7, 2014—Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
 
Scientists Generate 3D Structure for the Malaria Parasite Genome
April 4, 2014—University of California, Riverside
These news releases were issued by organizations supported by NIAID. To receive NIAID-issued news releases, update your subscription preferences by selecting “News Releases.”

NHLBI Funding Opportunities, April 17, 2014

NHLBI_Standard_Sig_Logo_RGB - New

Funding and Research Opportunities

The following funding opportunity announcements from the NHLBI or other components of the National Institutes of Health, might be of interest:

NIAID Funding Newsletter, April 17, 2014

NIAID Funding Newsletter, April 17, 2014

NIAID News Release Logo

April 17, 2014

Feature Articles
Opportunities and Resources
In The News
Advice Corner
New Funding Opportunities
Header: Feature Articles. 

Big News on Application Submission Policy

For the past few years, you could resubmit just one time if your initial application didn't succeed.
Now you can send a new (A0) application without NIH requiring you to make substantial changes to the scientific direction or scope. This means after an unsuccessful application, you can send a new application in the same scientific vein.
A new (A0) application always gets a new serial number, and there is no formal link between it and any prior application.
  • You can follow a resubmission (A1) application only with an A0 application.
  • If you are submitting a new application after an unsuccessful competing renewal (Type 2) application, the next application must be new (Type 1 A0).
  • Apply on the new application due date, not the renewal date.
For the official announcement, including reasons for the change, see the April 17, 2014, Guide notice. Also see the updated FAQ on Resubmissions of NIH Applications.

The New Policy Is Already In Effect

You can take advantage of this for your next due date since the policy kicked in for due dates after April 16. The first standard due date affected is May 7, 2014, for AIDS and AIDS-related applications.
You must wait for your summary statement from the previous application's review before sending a new application or else NIH might consider it an overlapping application with the previous one. An application is considered under review until the summary statement is released (that rule is still in effect). Also, you can't send an overlapping application while a prior similar one is under appeal. Learn more at Evaluation of Overlapping Applications.
Now that you aren’t obligated to make substantial changes in scientific direction or scope after an unsuccessful application, you'll have to decide whether that's the right move. See our advice below and discuss with your program officer.

Our Advice

We're still working on site updates to reflect this breaking news. Meanwhile, our advice probably sounds familiar: always strive to enhance your next application.
For all applications:
  • Strengthen your next submission of the application using reviewers’ feedback in the summary statement, from your program officer, and from your mentoring colleagues
  • Add the latest preliminary data and new publications.
  • Ensure your application reflects the most current science.
  • Consider which study section and institute or center assignments you want for this application and make that request in your cover letter.
  • Use the latest funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and forms associated with your planned receipt date.
For an A0 application in the same vein as a prior application, also do the following:
  • Take a hard look at whether another attempt using the same idea is likely to result in funding.
    • Even if you submit your previously reviewed application as new (an A0), it may go to the same study section and reviewers are likely to remember it from before. You won't have the benefit of an introduction to address the prior comments. Therefore, make sure you have taken reviewers' suggestions into consideration when writing your application.
    • We don't anticipate substantial improvement in paylines, so don't count on that.
    • Consider adjusting or completely overhauling your proposal as needed.
  • Follow the FOA's procedures for new applications.
    • Don't respond directly to comments from prior reviews. Just use them to improve the application.
    • Omit the introduction.
    • For type 2, also omit the progress report.
    • Get prior approvals again as required. For examples, see the Big Grants SOP and Conference Awards SOP.
    • Confirm you still meet any eligibility criteria (career stage or other qualifiers.)
One last note: if you plan to send multiple applications on non-overlapping topics, consider staggering your timing so they don't both end up in the same study section for the same round of initial peer review. Otherwise, you're competing with yourself.
As we update our site, we'll list the changes on Latest Funding Updates. We'll also share any new advice for you in follow-up articles.
If you have any questions or feedback about how this new policy affects you, email us at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov.
Header: Opportunities and Resources.

An Opportunity to Lead the Network for Atopic Dermatitis Research

Since 2004, NIAID has supported the Atopic Dermatitis Research Network (ADRN), which conducts clinical research studies to better understand host defense mechanisms in the skin.
We encourage applicants to respond to a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) that supports the continuation of the ADRN.
Areas of Research Interest
The FOA has several research areas of interest, such as:
  • Studies of the microbiome in atopic dermatitis (AD) and its role in disease pathogenesis, including:
    • Studies of alterations in the cutaneous or other microbiome in patients with AD compared to healthy controls.
    • Longitudinal studies of the skin microbiome.
    • Evaluation of the effects of microbiome changes on cutaneous host defense.
  • Cutaneous application of antimicrobial peptides and altering the skin microbiome.
  • Evaluating the immunologic, genetic, and epigenetic mechanisms underlying therapeutic interventions.
  • Understanding the susceptibility of subjects with AD to viral infections (eczema vaccinatum and eczema herpeticum) and bacterial infections (colonization and infection with Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA).
The majority of research that ADRN conducts should involve human subjects, but animal studies may be included if they 1) provide information that can't be obtained by human studies and 2) are directly linked to ongoing or planned human studies.
Projects to Be Included
A multiproject application is required and must include both clinical and mechanistic study projects.
Clinical projects fall into the following categories. In addition to the required four clinical projects (two for each category), applicants may propose up to two others (either interventional clinical trials or clinical studies).
  • Interventional clinical trials—aimed at modulating viral or bacterial colonization/infection of the skin and/or the immune response to these infectious agents.
  • Clinical studies—include observational studies, genetic and/or epigenetic studies, studies of the skin microbiome or longitudinal studies to identify and characterize AD phenotypes pertaining to clinical presentation, skin and peripheral blood immunologic responses and patterns of cutaneous host defense.
Mechanistic studies, which should involve human subjects, must be part of both interventional clinical trials and clinical studies projects and be aimed at:
  • Understanding the mechanisms of either the disease or action of a treatment modality.
  • Identifying biomarkers that predict disease severity or progression from sensitization to allergy, or the ability of a treatment modality to affect efficacy or safety.
For complete details, including further information on research studies and objectives, read the March 20, 2014, Guide notice.
Deadlines, Writing Help
Optional letters of intent are due June 8, 2014, with applications due a month later on July 8.
For help in writing a multiproject application, as well as information on electronic submission, go to Guidance for Preparing a Multiproject Research Application.
Separator line

Improved Understanding of Immunity Through Improved Computational Models

NIAID has issued a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for multiproject cooperative agreements (U19) to develop computational models of immunity to infectious diseases. Using computational modeling and immunological experimentation, applicants will develop, refine, and validate models of immune responses either during or following infection or before and after vaccination.
Applicants will propose two to four research projects arranged around a central scientific theme.
Areas of interest include the dynamics of innate immune responses, mechanisms of adaptive immune pathways, and homeostatic mechanisms that maintain protective immunity.
Be sure to follow the eligibility requirements listed in the FOA, including:
  • One immunologist and one computational modeler must be included as multiprogram directors/principal investigators of the entire U19.
  • At least one project must focus on computational model development, refinement, or validation.
  • At least one project must focus on immunological experimentation and at least one aim of the immunology project(s) must include human primary cells or tissues.
In addition, the following are not permitted:
  • Clinical trials, although the use of data obtained from independently-funded clinical trials is allowed.
  • HIV/AIDS and related studies.
  • In vitro studies using only human cell lines.
  • Epidemiological studies.
  • Projects that focus primarily on:
    • Data analysis tool development.
    • Computational models in the absence of biological experimentation.
    • Pathogen infection, replication, and dissemination either within a host or at the population level.
Applications must include an Administrative core and an Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund (IOF) Management core. They may also propose Optional Service cores. For advice on writing an effective multiproject application, see Guidance for Preparing a Multiproject Research Application.
NIAID intends to fund three or four awardees. Following review, NIAID will choose one institution from among the successful applicants to manage the IOF for the entire network. All awardees are expected to share their computational models and data through a publicly accessible repository(ies).
Optional letters of intent are due June 18, 2014. Applications are due July 18, 2014.
For full details, including examples of our specific areas of research interest, see the March 21, 2014, Guide notice.

Separator line

Big Data Meets Small Business

Attention small businesses: Check out two funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) to develop new approaches, standards, methods, tools, software, and competencies to improve scientific use of "big data."
For each opportunity, you'll have a chance to focus on technologies for biomedical computing and informatics across all of NIH's research areas.
If that seems exceptionally broad to you, we concur—and that's the point.
These opportunities are looking for dynamic, innovative projects that have the potential to generate major changes in how scientists conduct research, from basic biomedicine to research targeted to organ systems and diseases.
NIH's Division of Receipt and Referral will send us applications that fit within our mission area, but as always, you may request assignment to NIAID in your cover letter.
Read the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) FOAs for details, including topic areas, application instructions, and NIAID contacts.
These funding opportunities come from NIH's Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) program, an effort to improve biomedical use of data sets and databases that are too large or complex for conventional research approaches.
Learn more about it at Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K). Also see other BD2K Funding Opportunities and Notices.
Separator line

Innovative Research to Overcome Barrier to HIV Cure

Antiretroviral therapy cannot fully eliminate latently-infected CD4+ T cells, which is a major obstacle to achieving an HIV cure. NIAID now seeks an approach that can selectively eliminate HIV-1 latently-infected cells without depending on viral reactivation or viral protein expression.
Toward that end, we are looking to fund R01 research projects that:
  • Identify biomarkers or molecular signatures of latently-infected cells that could be used for targeting.
  • Offer a novel approach to selectively eliminating latently-infected cells that do not require reactivation or HIV gene expression.
  • Permanently inactivate integrated HIV provirus.
Innovative thinking and cutting-edge technology are imperative. To ensure your application is eligible, read the March 25, 2014, Guidenotice for specific examples of nonresponsive areas of research, such as clinical trials or studies that rely solely on intensification of antiretroviral therapy.
Send optional letters of intent by June 15, 2014. Apply by July 15, 2014.
Header: Other News. 

News Briefs

eRA Database Downtime Scheduled for Late May. The electronic Research Administration (eRA) system will be offline for scheduled maintenance from 9:00 a.m. on May 23 until 7:00 a.m. on May 27, 2014. As a result, due dates that fall on or between May 25 and May 28, 2014, will move to May 29, 2014. If you are preparing a multiproject application using ASSIST, you will not have access to your application during the downtime and should plan accordingly.
SBIR/STTR Webinar Resources Available Online. Materials from the NIH SBIR/STTR Presubmission Updates Webinar are now posted, including video, slides, and transcript.
Two Requests for Information About Chimp Facilities. In an April 4, 2014, Guide notice, NIH recommended that the primary living space of chimpanzees be at least 250 square feet per animal. NIH now seeks feedback from researchers with experience maintaining chimpanzees, as requested in two RFIs—NOT-OD-14-067 and NOT-OD-14-075—with responses due April 30, 2014, and June 2, 2014, respectively.
You Can Nominate an SBIR/STTR Champion. Nominations for the prestigious 2014 Tibbetts and SBIR Hall of Fame Awards are open until May 2, 2014. In June 2014, winners will attend a White House Awards Program in Washington, D.C. and be honored at the annual SBIR National Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
Upcoming International Grants Management Workshop. An NIAID Grants Policy and Management Training Workshop will take place in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, from June 23 to 25, 2014. Check out the Agenda and Register now.
Save the Date for Future Small Business Conferences. This year's NIAID SBIR/STTR Workshop will take place in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on September 4 and 5, while the NIH SBIR/STTR Conference will be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from October 21-23.
Header: Advice Corner.

Know When You Do—and Don't—Have to Get NIAID's Prior Approval

Before you make changes to your grant, know whether you need to get NIAID's permission in advance.
Prior Approval Is Necessary
You must get our prior approval for some actions, like modifying the scope of your grant, transferring a grant from one institution to another, and changing from a single to multiple PI award, or vice versa. For the complete list, see our Prior Approvals for Post-Award Grant Actions SOP.
Keep in mind that there may be items specific to your grant for which you need prior approval, so check your Notice of Award.
Give yourself plenty of time to get approval by making your request at least 30 days before you want your proposed change to take effect. To be safe, you may want to check with your grants management specialist about how much time you'll need for the type of prior approval you're seeking.
Note: though your program officer can advise you, your grants management specialist is the one who will approve or disapprove your prior approval request.
Prior Approval Not Necessary
You don't need a green light from us to take the steps described in Grantees Can Take Many Actions Independently in the Strategy for NIH Funding.
If you have questions or are unsure whether you need prior approval, contact your grants management specialist.
Separator line

If Preaward Spending Is Okay With Your Institution, It's Okay With Us

You're waiting for your Notice of Award and want to start your project, but you need money to get it underway. What are you to do? Consider this: ask staff in your institutional business office for approval on preaward spending.
Getting permission before you spend is absolutely essential since your institution is responsible for your expenses in the event that we reduce your award or cannot issue your grant.
It's also important to keep in mind these key points:
  • Incurring preaward costs in anticipation of a competing or noncompeting award does not put NIH under any obligation to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover preaward costs incurred.
  • Preaward costs result in borrowing against future support. This borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project.
If your institution gives you the green light to use its money, the only preaward spending costs you can incur are those that: 1) are needed to conduct the project and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval.
For competing grants, you can charge allowable preaward costs incurred up to 90 days before your initial Notice of Grant Award's budget period start date.
For noncompeting grants, you may incur preaward costs before the beginning date of a budget period without regard to the time parameters above. Check to see what expenses your business office will allow.
If you have any questions, contact your grants management specialist.
Header: Reader Questions. 
Feel free to send us a question at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov. After responding to you, we may include your question in the newsletter, incorporate it into the NIAID Research Funding site, or both.
"Does NIAID sponsor individual researchers to attend conferences?"—anonymous reader
No. You may have noticed a recent funding opportunity announcement (FOA) called NIH Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings. This FOA supports the scientific conferences themselves through the R13/U13 mechanism, which may include defraying registration costs for attendees, but not an individual's conference and travel expenses.
"What is the submission deadline for an AIDS-related F32 application?"—anonymous reader
May 7, 2014, for Cycle I. NIAID follows NIH's AIDS and AIDS-related dates for all activity codes, including the NRSA Individual Postdoctoral Fellowship (F32).
Header: New Funding Opportunities.
See other announcements at NIAID Funding Opportunities List.

blog.aids.gov − Reigniting the Flame

blog.aids.gov − Reigniting the Flame



AIDS.gov Blog Update

AIDS.gov Blog for U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services.
This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
04/17/2014 08:53 PM EDT

The Young Black Gay Men’s Leadership Initiative (YBGLI)  seeks to change the status quo surrounding the issues that disproportionately affect young Black gay men of color. On April 2-4, 2014 the Initiative held its second Policy & Advocacy Summit (PAS), planned and facilitated by the Organizing Committee (OC) comprised of nine young Black gay men under...

blog.aids.gov − Affordable Care Act Enrollment Tips: Qualifying Life Events

blog.aids.gov − Affordable Care Act Enrollment Tips: Qualifying Life Events



AIDS.gov Blog Update

AIDS.gov Blog for U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services.
This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
04/17/2014 02:03 PM EDT

The initial open enrollment period in the Health Insurance Marketplace closed on March 31, 2014 and the next open enrollment period will be between November 15, 2014 and February 15, 2015. But did you know that some life events may qualify you to enroll in private health insurance coverage through the Marketplace outside of the...

Diagnostic Errors Study Findings | Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ)

Diagnostic Errors Study Findings | Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ)

AHRQ--Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Advancing Excellence in Health Care



Diagnostic Errors Study Findings

Outpatient Diagnostic Errors Affect 1 in 20 U.S. Adults, AHRQ Study Finds

Press Release Date: April 16, 2014
Diagnostic errors—missed opportunities to make a timely or correct diagnosis based on available evidence—occur in about 5 percent of adults in the United States, according to a new study published in the April 21 issue of BMJ Quality & Safety. The study, partially funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), estimates that approximately 12 million adults in the United States could experience an outpatient diagnostic error each year.
The study, "The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving U.S. adult populations," used data from three previous studies of errors in general primary care diagnosis, colorectal cancer diagnosis, and lung cancer diagnosis.  In all three studies, diagnostic errors were confirmed through rigorous chart review. The authors estimated that about half of the diagnostic errors they found could have severely harmed patients.
Diagnostic errors can harm patients by delaying their treatment. For example, a delayed or incorrect cancer diagnosis could make the disease harder to treat or more deadly. 
"Keeping patients safe begins with a correct and timely diagnosis," said AHRQ Director Richard Kronick, Ph.D. "Diagnostic errors made in outpatient care can be difficult to measure, and this is a relatively new area for patient safety researchers. Health care professionals are typically accurate in making diagnoses, but finding ways to improve diagnoses and eliminate errors is an important goal. This study helps us better understand the extent of the problem and focus our efforts on reducing the harm to patients."
Patient safety has long been a focus of the U.S. health care quality improvement movement. HHS' Office of the Inspector General estimated in 2010 that about one in seven Medicare patients discharged from hospitals experienced at least one adverse event. Much of the patient safety effort has been concentrated on hospitals and nursing homes. More recently, these efforts are focusing on other settings of care such as ambulatory settings, where many types of health conditions or illnesses are often first diagnosed.
In this study, researchers led by Hardeep Singh, M.D., M.P.H., chief of the health policy, quality & informatics program at the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, based at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, Texas, and an associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, built estimates of diagnostic error by compiling and analyzing data from three previous studies. These studies evaluated situations such as unexpected return visits and lack of timely follow up and provided researchers with an estimated frequency of diagnostic error. This frequency was then applied to the general adult population.
The findings are consistent with recent data from the general public about diagnostic errors, the authors said. This study is significant because it is based on a large sample size and is the most robust estimate thus far to address the frequency of diagnostic error in routine outpatient care.
"Misdiagnosis is clearly a serious problem for the health care field," said Singh. "This population-based estimate should provide a foundation for policymakers, health care organizations and researchers to strengthen efforts to measure and reduce diagnostic errors." 
Ensuring that test results are not lost or misplaced, including through the use of health information technology, is a critical part of reducing diagnostic errors. AHRQ recently published a toolkit to help doctors, nurses and medical office staff improve their processes for tracking, reporting and following up with patients after medical laboratory tests. Approximately 40 percent of primary care office visits involve some type of diagnostic medical test, such as a urine sample or blood test, provided on site or at a laboratory. However, if test results are lost, incorrect or incomplete, the wrong treatment may be prescribed and patient harm can occur. The toolkit, Improving Your Office Testing Process, can be found at www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/tools/office-testing-toolkit/.
Additionally, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology recently released the "SAFER Guides"—a new set of guides and interactive tools to help health care providers more safely use electronic health information technology products, including test results reporting and follow up.  These guides are available atwww.healthit.gov/safer/safer-guides.
AHRQ, a research agency within HHS, works to make health care safer by investigating the ways that patients are harmed in health care, why this harm occurs and how to prevent it. The findings from this research inform policy and are translated into practical tools for providers. In addition to AHRQ, funding for this work was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety, and the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. For more information, visit www.ahrq.gov.
Current as of April 2014
Internet Citation: Diagnostic Errors Study Findings: Outpatient Diagnostic Errors Affect 1 in 20 U.S. Adults, AHRQ Study Finds. April 2014. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/newsroom/press-releases/2014/diagnostic_errors.html