Methodologies for evaluating strategies to reduce diagnostic error: report from the research summit at the 7th International Diagnostic Error in Medicine Conference

Author:

Bruce Beau B.1,El-Kareh Robert2,Ely John W.3,Kanter Michael H.4,Rao Goutham5,Schiff Gordon D.6,ten Berg Maarten J.7,McDonald Kathryn M.8

Affiliation:

1. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

2. University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA

3. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA

4. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Pasadena, CA, USA; and National Permanente Federation, Oakland, CA, USA

5. University of Chicago and NorthShore University HealthSystem, Chicago, IL, USA

6. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

7. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

8. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; and University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3