Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Diagnosis

Official Journal of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM)

Editor-in-Chief: Graber, Mark L. / Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Argy, Nicolas / Epner, Paul L. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Singhal, Geeta / McDonald, Kathryn / Singh, Hardeep / Newman-Toker, David

Editorial Board: Basso , Daniela / Crock, Carmel / Croskerry, Pat / Dhaliwal, Gurpreet / Ely, John / Giannitsis, Evangelos / Katus, Hugo A. / Laposata, Michael / Lyratzopoulos, Yoryos / Maude, Jason / Sittig, Dean F. / Sonntag, Oswald / Zwaan, Laura

Online
ISSN
2194-802X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

What interventions could reduce diagnostic error in emergency departments? A review of evidence, practice and consumer perspectives

Breanna WrightORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3630-7357 / Nicholas Faulkner
  • BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Peter Bragge
  • BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Mark Graber
  • Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM), New York, NY, USA
  • RTI International, Raleigh, NC, USA
  • Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-05-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0104

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to synthesise review evidence, practice and patient perspectives on interventions to reduce diagnostic error in emergency departments (EDs). A rapid review methodology identified nine systematic reviews for inclusion. Six practice interviews were conducted to identify local contextual insights and implementation considerations. Finally, patient perspectives were explored through a citizen panel with 11 participants. The rapid review found evidence for the following interventions: second opinion, decision aids, guided reflection and education. Practitioners suggested three of the four interventions from the academic review: second opinion, decision aids and education. Practitioners suggested four additional interventions: improving teamwork, engaging patients, learning from mistakes and scheduled test follow-up. Patients most favoured interventions that improved communication through education and patient engagement, while also suggesting that implementation of state-wide standards to reduce variability in care and sufficient staffing are important to address diagnostic errors. Triangulating these three perspectives on the evidence allows for the intersections to be highlighted and demonstrates the usefulness of incorporating practitioner reflections and patient values in developing potential interventions.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: clinician perspective; diagnosis; diagnostic error; emergency department; emergency medicine; mixed methods; patient engagement; patient safety; teamwork

References

  • 1.

    Tehrani AS, Lee H, Mathews SC, Shore A, Makary MA, Pronovost PJ, et al. 25-Year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank. Br Med J Qual Saf 2013;22:672–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:611–7.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Blumenthal-Barby J, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making 2014;35:539–57.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, Tobler PN. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016;16: Article number 138.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1493–9.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Sullivan C, Staib A, Khanna S, Good NM, Boyle J, Cattell R, et al. The National Emergency Access Target (NEAT) and the 4-hour rule: time to review the target. Med J Aust 2016;204:354.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Medford-Davis L, Park E, Shlamovitz G, Suliburk J, MeyerAN, Singh H. Diagnostic errors related to acute abdominal pain in the emergency department. Emerg Med J 2016;33:253–9.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012;7:50.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy 2002;61:213–36.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Bell K, Strand H, Inder WJ. Effect of a dedicated osteoporosis health professional on screening and treatment in outpatients presenting with acute low trauma non-hip fracture: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 2014;9:167.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Lambe KA, O’Reilly G, Kelly BD, Curristan S. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review. Br Med J Qual Saf 2016;25:808–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Riches N, Panagioti M, Alam R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Campbell S, Esmail A, et al. The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148991.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Abimajyi-Ochom J, Mudiyanselage S, Catchpool M, Firipis M, Watts J. Strategies to prevent diagnostic errors: a literature review. Melbourne: Centre for Population Health Research, Deakin University, 2017.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Kiesewetter J, Fischer F, Fischer MR. Collaborative clinical reasoning – a systematic review of empirical studies. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2017;37:123–8.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Gilmartin H, Goyal A, Hamati MC, Mann J, Saint S, Chopra V. Brief mindfulness practices for healthcare providers – a systematic literature review. Am J Med 2017;130:1219.e1–17.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Alam R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Panagioti M, Esmail A, Campbell S, Panagopoulou E. Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a systematic critical review. BMC Fam Pract 2017;18.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Mardis M, Davis J, Benningfield B, Elliott C, Youngstrom M, Nelson B, et al. Shift-to-Shift handoff effects on patient safety and outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Med Qual 2017;32:34–42.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    McDonald K, Matesic B, Contopoulos-Iannidis D, Lonhart J, Schmidt E, Pineda N, et al. Patient safety strategies targeted at diagnostic errors – a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:381–9.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Wagstaff AS, Lie J-A. Shift and night work and long working hours – a systematic review of safety implications. Scand J Work Environ Health 2011;37:173–85.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Hamilton P, Eschiti VS, Hernandez K, Neill D. Differences between weekend and weekday nurse work environments and patient outcomes: a focus group approach to model testing. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2007;21:331–41.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Peberdy MA, Ornato JP, Larkin GL, Braithwaite RS, Kashner TM, Carey SM, et al. Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest during nights and weekends. J Am Med Assoc 2008;299:785–92.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Heale R, Forbes D. Understanding triangulation in research. Evid Based Nurs 2013;16:98.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Graber M, Rusz D, Jones M, Farm-Franks D, Jones B, Gluck J, et al. The new diagnostic team. Diagnosis 2017;4:225–38.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Gleason K, Davidson P, Tanner E, Baker D, Baptiste D, Rushton C, et al. Defining the critical role of nurses in diagnostic error prevention: a conceptual framework and a call to action. Diagnosis 2017;4:201–10.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    National Academy of Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington: National Academies Press, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, Kohn LT. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington: National Academies Press, 2000.Google Scholar

  • 27.

    Payne VL, Singh H, Meyer AN, Levy L, Harrison D, Graber ML. Patient-initiated second opinions: systematic review of characteristics and impact on diagnosis, treatment, and satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89:687–96.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Sibbald M, de Bruin AB, van Merrienboer JJ. Checklists improve experts’ diagnostic decisions. Med Educ 2013;47:301–8.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med 2008;121:S2–23.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Bornstein BH, Emler A. Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7:97–107.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-12-05

Accepted: 2019-05-04

Published Online: 2019-05-22


Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author contributions: BW and PB conceived the study and methodology. BW, PB and NK undertook data curation and analysis. MG provided guidance on structure and data analysis. BW drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision and editing. All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: This research was conducted with funding from the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority (VMIA) Research and Innovation Program; Ref: VMIA-MIRI 2016. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organisation(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.


Citation Information: Diagnosis, 20180104, ISSN (Online) 2194-802X, ISSN (Print) 2194-8011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0104.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in