Patient safety strategies targeted at diagnostic errors: a systematic review.
ABSTRACT Missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis can lead to inappropriate patient care, poor patient outcomes, and increased cost. This systematic review analyzed evaluations of interventions to prevent diagnostic errors. Searches used MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Network, bibliographies, and prior systematic reviews. Studies that evaluated any intervention to decrease diagnostic errors in any clinical setting and with any study design were eligible, provided that they addressed a patient-related outcome. Two independent reviewers extracted study data and rated study quality.There were 109 studies that addressed 1 or more intervention categories: personnel changes (n = 6), educational interventions (n = 11), technique (n = 23), structured process changes (n = 27), technology-based systems interventions (n = 32), and review methods (n = 38). Of 14 randomized trials, which were rated as having mostly low to moderate risk of bias, 11 reported interventions that reduced diagnostic errors. Evidence seemed strongest for technology-based systems (for example, text message alerting) and specific techniques (for example, testing equipment adaptations). Studies provided no information on harms, cost, or contextual application of interventions. Overall, the review showed a growing field of diagnostic error research and categorized and identified promising interventions that warrant evaluation in large studies across diverse settings.
- SourceAvailable from: Fiona Walter[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background:Reducing diagnostic delays in primary care by improving the assessment of symptoms associated with cancer could have significant impacts on cancer outcomes. Symptom risk assessment tools could improve the diagnostic assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in primary care. We aimed to explore the use of a cancer risk tool, which implements the QCancer model, in consultations and its potential impact on clinical decision making.Methods:We implemented an exploratory 'action design' method with 15 general practitioners (GPs) from Victoria, Australia. General practitioners applied the risk tool in simulated consultations, conducted semi-structured interviews based on the normalisation process theory and explored issues relating to implementation of the tool.Results:The risk tool was perceived as being potentially useful for patients with complex histories. More experienced GPs were distrustful of the risk output, especially when it conflicted with their clinical judgement. Variable interpretation of symptoms meant that there was significant variation in risk assessment. When a risk output was high, GPs were confronted with numerical risk outputs creating challenges in consultation.Conclusions:Significant barriers to implementing electronic cancer risk assessment tools in consultation could limit their uptake. These relate not only to the design and integration of the tool but also to variation in interpretation of clinical histories, and therefore variable risk outputs and strong beliefs in personal clinical intuition.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 3 March 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.46 www.bjcancer.com.British Journal of Cancer 03/2015; 112. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.46 · 4.82 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although healthcare quality and patient safety have longstanding international attention, the target of reducing diagnostic errors has only recently gained prominence, even though numerous patients, families and professional caregivers have suffered from diagnostic mishaps for a long time. Similarly, patients have always been involved in their own care to some extent, but only recently have patients sought more opportunities for engagement and participation in healthcare improvements. This paper brings these two promising trends together, analysing strategies for patient involvement in reducing diagnostic errors in an individual's own care, in improving the healthcare delivery system's diagnostic safety, and in contributing to research and policy development on diagnosis-related issues.BMJ quality & safety 07/2013; DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001623 · 3.28 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Diagnostic errors remain an underemphasised and understudied area of patient safety research. We briefly summarise the methods that have been used to conduct research on epidemiology, contributing factors and interventions related to diagnostic error and outline directions for future research. Research methods that have studied epidemiology of diagnostic error provide some estimate on diagnostic error rates. However, there appears to be a large variability in the reported rates due to the heterogeneity of definitions and study methods used. Thus, future methods should focus on obtaining more precise estimates in different settings of care. This would lay the foundation for measuring error rates over time to evaluate improvements. Research methods have studied contributing factors for diagnostic error in both naturalistic and experimental settings. Both approaches have revealed important and complementary information. Newer conceptual models from outside healthcare are needed to advance the depth and rigour of analysis of systems and cognitive insights of causes of error. While the literature has suggested many potentially fruitful interventions for reducing diagnostic errors, most have not been systematically evaluated and/or widely implemented in practice. Research is needed to study promising intervention areas such as enhanced patient involvement in diagnosis, improving diagnosis through the use of electronic tools and identification and reduction of specific diagnostic process 'pitfalls' (eg, failure to conduct appropriate diagnostic evaluation of a breast lump after a 'normal' mammogram). The last decade of research on diagnostic error has made promising steps and laid a foundation for more rigorous methods to advance the field.BMJ quality & safety 08/2013; 22(Suppl 2). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001624 · 3.28 Impact Factor