Timothy J Sanford, Pranav Kaul, Danielle M McCarthy
{"title":"Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study.","authors":"Timothy J Sanford, Pranav Kaul, Danielle M McCarthy","doi":"10.1111/acem.15047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 2022 study on diagnostic error in the emergency department (ED) published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that one in every 18 ED patients is misdiagnosed. The report was methodologically critiqued by emergency physicians and researchers. However, little is known about public perception of error in the ED. We sought to characterize public response to AHRQ's publication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted for online news articles published December 2022 reporting the AHRQ study and containing \"public comment\" sections. Verbatim comments and relevant characteristics were collected. Three coders completed content analysis and resolved any differences. Descriptive statistics and themes are reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen online articles were reviewed; three had public comment sections (New York Times, DailyMail, and Boston Globe). There were 553 unique user comments; 293 were original comments (53%) and 260 were replies to comments (47%). The 260 replies were in response to 113 original comments, with the remaining original comments having 0 replies (n = 180). Of the 202 commenters who identified a personal role in a health care encounter, 70 (35%) identified as patients and 68 (34%) identified as physicians. Comments centered on seven major themes: (1) negative personal experiences, (2) reframing study conclusions, (3) sense of decline in training standards, (4) internal stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (5) external stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (6) suggested solutions, and (7) role of the ED in diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The news coverage of AHRQ's report provided individuals a platform to share their perspectives. Many comments reflected a nuanced understanding of the role of emergency care and the stressors of the ED environment. Despite questions about the report's accuracy, there were many individuals who shared personal negative experiences suggesting that the public may feel directly impacted by error in the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The 2022 study on diagnostic error in the emergency department (ED) published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that one in every 18 ED patients is misdiagnosed. The report was methodologically critiqued by emergency physicians and researchers. However, little is known about public perception of error in the ED. We sought to characterize public response to AHRQ's publication.
Methods: A search was conducted for online news articles published December 2022 reporting the AHRQ study and containing "public comment" sections. Verbatim comments and relevant characteristics were collected. Three coders completed content analysis and resolved any differences. Descriptive statistics and themes are reported.
Results: Fifteen online articles were reviewed; three had public comment sections (New York Times, DailyMail, and Boston Globe). There were 553 unique user comments; 293 were original comments (53%) and 260 were replies to comments (47%). The 260 replies were in response to 113 original comments, with the remaining original comments having 0 replies (n = 180). Of the 202 commenters who identified a personal role in a health care encounter, 70 (35%) identified as patients and 68 (34%) identified as physicians. Comments centered on seven major themes: (1) negative personal experiences, (2) reframing study conclusions, (3) sense of decline in training standards, (4) internal stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (5) external stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (6) suggested solutions, and (7) role of the ED in diagnosis.
Conclusions: The news coverage of AHRQ's report provided individuals a platform to share their perspectives. Many comments reflected a nuanced understanding of the role of emergency care and the stressors of the ED environment. Despite questions about the report's accuracy, there were many individuals who shared personal negative experiences suggesting that the public may feel directly impacted by error in the ED.
期刊介绍：
Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine.
The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more.
Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
