Sandra Algarin Perneth, Gilberto Perez Rodriguez Garcia, Juan P Brito, Tejal Gandhi, Carma L Bylund, Ian G Hargraves, Naykky Singh Ospina
{"title":"Developing a framework for understanding diagnostic reconciliation based on evidence review, stakeholder engagement, and practice evaluation.","authors":"Sandra Algarin Perneth, Gilberto Perez Rodriguez Garcia, Juan P Brito, Tejal Gandhi, Carma L Bylund, Ian G Hargraves, Naykky Singh Ospina","doi":"10.1515/dx-2024-0132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Diagnostic reconciliation is the collaborative process between patients and clinicians to create and reconcile evidence-based, feasible, and desirable care plans. However, the specific components of this process remain unclear. The objective of this study was to develop the first comprehensive framework to elucidate the diagnostic reconciliation process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We followed a multi-step and iterative approach to develop the framework, including a focused systematic review of diagnostic conversations, quantitative evaluation of recordings of real-life clinical visits recordings, and stakeholder engagement (e.g., patients, clinicians, researchers).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 17 potential components to the process of diagnostic reconciliation through literature review and stakeholder engagement. After review of 56 clinical visits and further stakeholder engagement, we developed a final framework including four categories: 1) understanding the need for a test/referral, 2) logistics of test/referral scheduling, 3) test/referral information, and 4) test/referral results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed framework lays the foundation for evaluation and improvement of diagnostic conversations in practice. Clinicians can enhance patient-centered diagnosis by co-creating diagnostic plans of care in practice and using the components described in the novel diagnostic reconciliation framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Diagnostic reconciliation is the collaborative process between patients and clinicians to create and reconcile evidence-based, feasible, and desirable care plans. However, the specific components of this process remain unclear. The objective of this study was to develop the first comprehensive framework to elucidate the diagnostic reconciliation process.
Methods: We followed a multi-step and iterative approach to develop the framework, including a focused systematic review of diagnostic conversations, quantitative evaluation of recordings of real-life clinical visits recordings, and stakeholder engagement (e.g., patients, clinicians, researchers).
Results: We identified 17 potential components to the process of diagnostic reconciliation through literature review and stakeholder engagement. After review of 56 clinical visits and further stakeholder engagement, we developed a final framework including four categories: 1) understanding the need for a test/referral, 2) logistics of test/referral scheduling, 3) test/referral information, and 4) test/referral results.
Conclusions: The proposed framework lays the foundation for evaluation and improvement of diagnostic conversations in practice. Clinicians can enhance patient-centered diagnosis by co-creating diagnostic plans of care in practice and using the components described in the novel diagnostic reconciliation framework.
期刊介绍:
Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality. Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error