Search

Background: There is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations., Purpose: To identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions., Methods: Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis., Results: Interviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health., Conclusions: Anti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Diagnostic errors may cause harm to patients by preventing or delaying appropriate treatment or by leading to unnecessary or harmful treatment., Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between patient safety culture, health information technology (IT) implementation, and the frequency of problems that could lead to diagnostic errors in the medical office setting, such as unavailable test results, unavailable medical records, or unpursued abnormal results., Methods: We used survey data from 925 medical offices nationwide that voluntarily submitted results to the 2012 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Medical Office Surveys on Patient Safety Culture database. At the office level, we ran a multivariate regression model to estimate the effect of culture on problem frequency while controlling for office-reported implementation levels of health IT, office characteristics such as the number of locations, and survey characteristics such as the percent of respondents that were physicians., Results: The most frequent problem was "results from a lab or imaging test were not available when needed"; across 925 offices, the average was 15% reporting that it happened daily or weekly. Higher overall culture scores were significantly associated with fewer occurrences of each problem assessed. Compared with offices with completed health IT implementation, offices in the process of health IT implementation had higher frequency of problems., Conclusions: This study offers insight into how patient safety culture and health IT implementation in medical offices can influence the frequency of breakdowns in processes of care, thereby identifying potential vulnerabilities that can increase diagnostic errors.

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.

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.

Context: Substantial discrepanies exist between clinical diagnoses and findings at autopsy. Autopsy may be used as a tool for quality management to analyze diagnostic discrepanies., Objective: To determine the rate at which autopsies detect important, clinically missed diagnoses, and the extent to which this rate has changed over time., Data Sources: A systematic literature search for English-language articles available on MEDLINE from 1966 to April 2002, using the search terms autopsy, postmortem changes, post-mortem, postmortem, necropsy, and posthumous, identified 45 studies reporting 53 distinct autopsy series meeting prospectively defined criteria. Reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies, and the final bibliography was distributed to experts in the field to identify missing or unpublished studies., Study Selection: Included studies reported clinically missed diagnoses involving a primary cause of death (major errors), with the most serious being those likely to have affected patient outcome (class I errors)., Data Extraction: Logistic regression was performed using data from 53 distinct autopsy series over a 40-year period and adjusting for the effects of changes in autopsy rates, country, case mix (general autopsies; adult medical; adult intensive care; adult or pediatric surgery; general pediatrics or pediatric inpatients; neonatal or pediatric intensive care; and other autopsy), and important methodological features of the primary studies., Data Synthesis: Of 53 autopsy series identified, 42 reported major errors and 37 reported class I errors. Twenty-six autopsy series reported both major and class I error rates. The median error rate was 23.5% (range, 4.1%-49.8%) for major errors and 9.0% (range, 0%-20.7%) for class I errors. Analyses of diagnostic error rates adjusting for the effects of case mix, country, and autopsy rate yielded relative decreases per decade of 19.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-33.8%) for major errors and 33.4% (95% [CI], 8.4%-51.6%) for class I errors. Despite these decreases, we estimated that a contemporary US institution (based on autopsy rates ranging from 100% [the extrapolated extreme at which clinical selection is eliminated] to 5% [roughly the national average]), could observe a major error rate from 8.4% to 24.4% and a class I error rate from 4.1% to 6.7%., Conclusion: The possibility that a given autopsy will reveal important unsuspected diagnoses has decreased over time, but remains sufficiently high that encouraging ongoing use of the autopsy appears warranted.

Diagnostic disparities are preventable differences in diagnostic errors or opportunities to achieve diagnostic excellence. There is a need to summarize solutions with explicit considerations for addressing diagnostic disparities. We aimed to describe potential solutions to diagnostic disparities, organize them into an action-oriented typology with illustrative examples, and characterize these solutions to identify gaps for their further development. During four human-centered design workshops composed of diverse expertise, participants ideated and clarified potential solutions to diagnostic disparities and were supported by environmental literature scan inputs. Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews with workshop participants validated identified solution examples and solution type characterizations, refining the typology. Our typology organizes 21 various types of potential diagnostic disparities solutions into four primary expertise categories needed for implementation: healthcare systems' internal expertise, educator-, multidisciplinary patient safety researcher-, and health IT-expertise. We provide descriptions of potential solution types ideated as focused on disparities and compare those to existing examples. Six types were characterized as having diagnostic-disparity-focused examples, five as having diagnostic-focused examples, and 10 as only having general healthcare examples. Only three solution types had widespread implementation. Twelve had implementation on limited scope, and six were mostly hypothetical. We describe gaps that inform the progress needed for each of the suggested solution types to specifically address diagnostic disparities and be suitable for the implementation in routine practice. Numerous opportunities exist to tailor existing solutions and promote their implementation. Likely enablers include new perspectives, more evidence, multidisciplinary collaborations, system redesign, meaningful patient engagement, and action-oriented coalitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article emphasizes the critical importance of accurate diagnosis in healthcare, highlighting that a correct diagnosis is essential for effective treatment and patient safety. Topics include multifaceted role of diagnosis in health promotion, the impact of diagnostic errors on patient outcomes, and initiatives to improve diagnostic safety, particularly in light of World Patient Safety Day 2024's focus on reducing diagnostic errors and enhancing patient engagement in the diagnostic process.

An editorial is presented which reviews the development and updates of the AHRQ's "Making Health Care Safer" reports, highlighting their role in improving patient safety. It discusses the historical context of these reports, their impact on patient safety practices (PSPs), and the latest findings from recent rapid reviews on patient and family engagement and opioid stewardship.

Diagnostic errors – inaccurate or untimely diagnoses or failures to communicate diagnoses – are harmful and costly for patients and health systems. Diagnostic disparities occur when diagnostic errors are experienced at disproportionate rates by certain patient subgroups based, for example, on patients' age, sex/gender, or race/ethnicity. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a human centered design workshop series that engages diverse stakeholders to develop solutions for mitigating diagnostic disparities. We employed a series of human centered design workshops supplemented by semi-structured interviews and literature evidence scans. Co-creation sessions and rapid prototyping by patient, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were used to generate design challenges, solution concepts, and prototypes. A series of four workshops attended by 25 unique participants was convened in 2019–2021. Workshops generated eight design challenges, envisioned 29 solutions, and formulated principles for developing solutions in an equitable, patient-centered manner. Workshops further resulted in the conceptualization of 37 solutions for addressing diagnostic disparities and prototypes for two of the solutions. Participants agreed that the workshop processes were replicable and could be implemented in other settings to allow stakeholders to generate context-specific solutions. The incorporation of human centered design through a series of workshops promises to be a productive way of engaging patient-researcher stakeholders to mitigate and prevent further exacerbation of diagnostic disparities. Healthcare stakeholders can apply human centered design principles to guide thinking about improving diagnostic performance and to center diverse patients' needs and experiences when implementing quality and safety improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We apply the high-reliability organization (HRO) paradigm to the diagnostic process, outlining challenges to enacting HRO principles in diagnosis and offering solutions for how diagnostic process stakeholders can overcome these barriers. Background: Evidence shows that healthcare is starting to organize for higher reliability by employing various principles and practices of HRO. These hold promise for enhancing safer care, but there has been little consideration of the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face while enacting HRO principles in the diagnostic process. To effectively deploy the HRO perspective, these barriers must be seriously considered. Method: We review key principles of the HRO paradigm, the diagnostic errors and harms that potentially can be prevented by its enactment, the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face in executing various principles and practices, and possible solutions that clinicians and organizational leaders can take to overcome these challenges and barriers. Results: Our analyses reveal multiple challenges including the inherent diagnostic uncertainty; the lack of diagnosis-focused performance feedback; the fact that diagnosis is often a solo, rather than team, activity; the tendency to simplify the diagnostic process; and professional and institutional status hierarchies. But these challenges are not insurmountable—there are strategies and solutions available to overcome them. Conclusion: The HRO lens offers some important ideas for how the safety of the diagnostic process can be improved. Application: The ideas proposed here can be enacted by both individual clinicians and healthcare leaders; both are necessary for making systematic progress in enhancing diagnostic performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we review current evidence on strategies to evaluate diagnostic error solutions, discuss the methodological challenges that exist in investigating the value of these strategies in patient care, and provide recommendations for methods that can be applied in investigating potential solutions to diagnostic errors. These recommendations were developed iteratively by the authors based upon initial discussions held during the Research Summit of the 7th Annual Diagnostic Error in Medicine Conference in September 2014. The recommendations include the following elements for designing studies of diagnostic research solutions: (1) Select direct and indirect outcomes measures of importance to patients, while also practical for the particular solution; (2) Develop a clearly-stated logic model for the solution to be tested; (3) Use rapid, iterative prototyping in the early phases of solution testing; (4) Use cluster-randomized clinical trials where feasible; (5) Avoid simple pre-post designs, in favor of stepped wedge and interrupted time series; (6) Leverage best practices for patient safety research and engage experts from relevant domains; and (7) Consider sources of bias and design studies and their analyses to minimize selection and information bias and control for confounding. Areas of diagnostic error mitigation research identified for further attention include: role of competing diagnoses, understanding the impacts of organizational culture, timing of diagnosis, and sequencing of research studies. Future research will likely require novel clinical, health services, and qualitative research methods to address the age-old problem of arriving at an accurate diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]