Search

Background: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I2 = 97%, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. Conclusions: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimorbidity is increasingly prevalent and represents a major challenge in primary care. Patients with multimorbidity are potentially more likely to experience safety incidents due to the complexity of their needs and frequency of their interactions with health services. However, rigorous syntheses of the link between patient safety incidents and multimorbidity are not available. This review examined the relationship between multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care. Methods: We followed our published protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007434). Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched up to May 2015. Study design and quality were assessed. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the associations between multimorbidity and two categories of patient safety outcomes: ‘active patient safety incidents’ (such as adverse drug events and medical complications) and ‘precursors of safety incidents’ (such as prescription errors, medication non-adherence, poor quality of care and diagnostic errors). Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken. Results: Eighty six relevant comparisons from 75 studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that physical-mental multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for ‘active patient safety incidents’ (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.38) and ‘precursors of safety incidents’ (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.03). Physical multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for active safety incidents (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.45 to 1.80) but was not associated with precursors of safety incidents (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.13). Statistical heterogeneity was high and the methodological quality of the studies was generally low. Conclusions: The association between multimorbidity and patient safety is complex, and varies by type of multimorbidity and type of safety incident. Our analyses suggest that multimorbidity involving mental health may be a key driver of safety incidents, which has important implication for the design and targeting of interventions to improve safety. High quality studies examining the mechanisms of patient safety incidents in patients with multimorbidity are needed, with the goal of promoting effective service delivery and ameliorating threats to safety in this group of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An ageing population with multimorbidity is putting pressure on health systems. A popular method of managing this pressure is identification of patients in primary care ‘at-risk’ of hospitalisation, and delivering case management to improve outcomes and avoid admissions. However, the effectiveness of this model has not been subjected to rigorous quantitative synthesis. Methods and Findings: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of case management for ‘at-risk’ patients in primary care. Six bibliographic databases were searched using terms for ‘case management’, ‘primary care’, and a methodology filter (Cochrane EPOC group). Effectiveness compared to usual care was measured across a number of relevant outcomes: Health – self-assessed health status, mortality; Cost – total cost of care, healthcare utilisation (primary and non-specialist care and secondary care separately), and; Satisfaction – patient satisfaction. We conducted secondary subgroup analyses to assess whether effectiveness was moderated by the particular model of case management, context, and study design. A total of 15,327 titles and abstracts were screened, 36 unique studies were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in total cost, mortality, utilisation of primary or secondary care. A very small significant effect favouring case management was found for self-reported health status in the short-term (0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14). A small significant effect favouring case management was found for patient satisfaction in the short- (0.26, 0.16 to 0.36) and long-term (0.35, 0.04 to 0.66). Secondary subgroup analyses suggested the effectiveness of case management may be increased when delivered by a multidisciplinary team, when a social worker was involved, and when delivered in a setting rated as low in initial ‘strength’ of primary care. Conclusions: This was the first meta-analytic review which examined the effects of case management on a wide range of outcomes and considered also the effects of key moderators. Current results do not support case management as an effective model, especially concerning reduction of secondary care use or total costs. We consider reasons for lack of effect and highlight key research questions for the future. Review Protocol: The review protocol is available as part of the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42014010824). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]