The patient narrative distortion index (PNDI): a framework to detect narrative loss as a hidden driver of diagnostic error.

IF 1.9 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Diagnosis Pub Date : 2026-07-15 DOI:10.1515/dx-2026-0086
Yogesh Kumar Gupta
{"title":"The patient narrative distortion index (PNDI): a framework to detect narrative loss as a hidden driver of diagnostic error.","authors":"Yogesh Kumar Gupta","doi":"10.1515/dx-2026-0086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient narratives are foundational to diagnosis, yet clinicians frequently and unintentionally distort, minimize, or reinterpret these narratives during clinical encounters. These distortions - termed patient narrative distortion - are unmeasured contributors to diagnostic error [G.D. Schiff, O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert et al., Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors, Arch Intern Med 169 (2009) 1881-1887; P. Croskerry, The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them, Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780; H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care, BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014) 727-731; and M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon, Diagnostic error in internal medicine, Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1493-1499], emotional harm [J. Conway, F. Federico, K. Stewart, M.J. Campbell, Respectful Management of Serious Clinical Adverse Events, IHI Innovation Series White Paper, IHI, Cambridge, MA, 2011], and inequity [E.N. Chapman, A. Kaatz, M. Carnes, Physicians and implicit bias: how it affects clinical decision making, Acad Med 88 (2013) 354-360; and M. Marmot, R.G. Wilkinson (Eds.), Social Determinants of Health, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005]. No existing safety tool captures the fidelity with which clinicians preserve patient stories [T. Greenhalgh, B. Hurwitz (Eds.), Narrative Based Medicine: Dialogue and Discourse in Clinical Practice, BMJ Books, London, 1998; and W. Levinson, D.L. Roter, J.P. Mullooly, V.T. Dull, R.M. Frankel, Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims, JAMA 277 (1997) 553-559]. The stages at which narrative distortion emerges are illustrated in Figure 1. The objective of this article was to define patient narrative distortion as a measurable construct, develop a five-domain taxonomy, propose a scoring system (PNDI), and outline a workflow and validation strategy for clinical use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted iterative conceptual modeling and structured synthesis of the diagnostic-safety and narrative-medicine literatures [G.D. Schiff, O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert et al., Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors, Arch Intern Med 169 (2009) 1881-1887; P. Croskerry, The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them, Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780; H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care, BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014) 727-731; and M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon, Diagnostic error in internal medicine, Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1493-1499] to identify core distortion modes, develop domain definitions, item-level anchors, and scoring thresholds. We propose a multi-phase validation plan including content validity, inter-rater reliability, construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PNDI taxonomy includes five domains: Narrative Completeness Distortion, Meaning Substitution Distortion, Salience Distortion, Context Stripping Distortion, and Bias-Driven Distortion [E.N. Chapman, A. Kaatz, M. Carnes, Physicians and implicit bias: how it affects clinical decision making, Acad Med 88 (2013) 354-360]. Each domain includes 0-3 severity anchors and real-world clinical examples. The total PNDI score ranges from 0-15, with interpretation bands for narrative integrity and safety risk. Encounter-level, unit-level, and organizational-level workflows for implementation are outlined. The five-domain PNDI taxonomy is shown in Figure 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PNDI operationalizes narrative integrity as a measurable dimension of diagnostic safety [The Joint Commission, National Patient Safety Goals: Improving Diagnosis in Health Care 2024-2026, The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, IL, 2024]. It provides clinicians, educators, and safety teams with a practical tool to detect narrative loss, reduce diagnostic error [G.D. Schiff, O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert et al., Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors, Arch Intern Med 169 (2009) 1881-1887; P. Croskerry, The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them, Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780; H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care, BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014) 727-731; and M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon, Diagnostic error in internal medicine, Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1493-1499], and strengthen patient trust [W. Levinson, D.L. Roter, J.P. Mullooly, V.T. Dull, R.M. Frankel, Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims, JAMA 277 (1997) 553-559].</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","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-2026-0086","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

Background: Patient narratives are foundational to diagnosis, yet clinicians frequently and unintentionally distort, minimize, or reinterpret these narratives during clinical encounters. These distortions - termed patient narrative distortion - are unmeasured contributors to diagnostic error [G.D. Schiff, O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert et al., Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors, Arch Intern Med 169 (2009) 1881-1887; P. Croskerry, The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them, Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780; H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care, BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014) 727-731; and M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon, Diagnostic error in internal medicine, Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1493-1499], emotional harm [J. Conway, F. Federico, K. Stewart, M.J. Campbell, Respectful Management of Serious Clinical Adverse Events, IHI Innovation Series White Paper, IHI, Cambridge, MA, 2011], and inequity [E.N. Chapman, A. Kaatz, M. Carnes, Physicians and implicit bias: how it affects clinical decision making, Acad Med 88 (2013) 354-360; and M. Marmot, R.G. Wilkinson (Eds.), Social Determinants of Health, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005]. No existing safety tool captures the fidelity with which clinicians preserve patient stories [T. Greenhalgh, B. Hurwitz (Eds.), Narrative Based Medicine: Dialogue and Discourse in Clinical Practice, BMJ Books, London, 1998; and W. Levinson, D.L. Roter, J.P. Mullooly, V.T. Dull, R.M. Frankel, Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims, JAMA 277 (1997) 553-559]. The stages at which narrative distortion emerges are illustrated in Figure 1. The objective of this article was to define patient narrative distortion as a measurable construct, develop a five-domain taxonomy, propose a scoring system (PNDI), and outline a workflow and validation strategy for clinical use.

Methods: We conducted iterative conceptual modeling and structured synthesis of the diagnostic-safety and narrative-medicine literatures [G.D. Schiff, O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert et al., Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors, Arch Intern Med 169 (2009) 1881-1887; P. Croskerry, The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them, Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780; H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care, BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014) 727-731; and M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon, Diagnostic error in internal medicine, Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1493-1499] to identify core distortion modes, develop domain definitions, item-level anchors, and scoring thresholds. We propose a multi-phase validation plan including content validity, inter-rater reliability, construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness.

Results: The PNDI taxonomy includes five domains: Narrative Completeness Distortion, Meaning Substitution Distortion, Salience Distortion, Context Stripping Distortion, and Bias-Driven Distortion [E.N. Chapman, A. Kaatz, M. Carnes, Physicians and implicit bias: how it affects clinical decision making, Acad Med 88 (2013) 354-360]. Each domain includes 0-3 severity anchors and real-world clinical examples. The total PNDI score ranges from 0-15, with interpretation bands for narrative integrity and safety risk. Encounter-level, unit-level, and organizational-level workflows for implementation are outlined. The five-domain PNDI taxonomy is shown in Figure 2.

Conclusions: PNDI operationalizes narrative integrity as a measurable dimension of diagnostic safety [The Joint Commission, National Patient Safety Goals: Improving Diagnosis in Health Care 2024-2026, The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, IL, 2024]. It provides clinicians, educators, and safety teams with a practical tool to detect narrative loss, reduce diagnostic error [G.D. Schiff, O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert et al., Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors, Arch Intern Med 169 (2009) 1881-1887; P. Croskerry, The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them, Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780; H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care, BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014) 727-731; and M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon, Diagnostic error in internal medicine, Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1493-1499], and strengthen patient trust [W. Levinson, D.L. Roter, J.P. Mullooly, V.T. Dull, R.M. Frankel, Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims, JAMA 277 (1997) 553-559].

患者叙事失真指数(PNDI):一种检测叙事缺失作为诊断错误隐藏驱动因素的框架。
背景:患者叙述是诊断的基础,然而临床医生在临床接触中经常无意地扭曲、最小化或重新解释这些叙述。这些扭曲——被称为病人叙述扭曲——是导致诊断错误的无法测量的因素希夫,O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert等人,医学诊断错误:分析583个医生报告的错误,实习医生169 (2009)1881-1887;P. Croskerry,认知错误在诊断中的重要性和减少认知错误的策略,Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780;H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas,门诊护理诊断错误的频率,中华医学杂志,23 (2014)727-731;张晓东,张晓东,张晓东,等。内科诊断错误的临床应用[J] .中华医学杂志,2004(5):387 - 398。康威,F. Federico, K. Stewart, M.J. Campbell,严重临床不良事件的尊重管理,IHI创新系列白皮书,IHI, Cambridge, MA, 2011],和不公平查chapman, A. Kaatz, M. Carnes,医生和内隐偏见:如何影响临床决策,Acad Med 88 (2013) 354-360;M. Marmot, R.G. Wilkinson(编),《健康的社会决定因素》,第2版,牛津大学出版社,牛津,2005年]。没有现有的安全工具能够捕捉到临床医生保存病人故事的保真度。Greenhalgh, B. Hurwitz(编辑),基于叙事的医学:临床实践中的对话和话语,BMJ图书,伦敦,1998;李文森,马鲁利,杜尔,兰克尔,医患沟通:与医疗事故索赔的关系[j].中国医学杂志(1997):553-559。叙事扭曲出现的阶段如图1所示。本文的目的是将患者叙事扭曲定义为可测量的结构,开发五域分类法,提出评分系统(PNDI),并概述临床使用的工作流程和验证策略。方法:我们对诊断安全和叙事医学文献进行了迭代概念建模和结构化综合希夫,O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert等人,医学诊断错误:分析583个医生报告的错误,实习医生169 (2009)1881-1887;P. Croskerry,认知错误在诊断中的重要性和减少认知错误的策略,Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780;H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas,门诊护理诊断错误的频率,中华医学杂志,23 (2014)727-731;M.L. Graber, N. Franklin, R. Gordon,《内科诊断错误》,Arch Intern Med 165(2005) 1493-1499]以识别核心扭曲模式,开发领域定义,项目级锚点和评分阈值。我们提出了一个多阶段的验证计划,包括内容效度、评价者间效度、结构效度、标准效度和反应性。结果:PNDI分类包括五个领域:叙述完整性扭曲、意义替代扭曲、显著性扭曲、语境剥离扭曲和偏见驱动扭曲[E.N.]陈晓明,陈晓明,陈晓明,内隐偏见对临床决策的影响[j].中国临床医学杂志,2013(4):354- 356。每个领域包括0-3个严重性锚点和现实世界的临床例子。PNDI总分在0-15分之间,叙述完整性和安全风险分为解释等级。概述了实现的遭遇级、单元级和组织级工作流。五域PNDI分类法如图2所示。结论:PNDI将叙事完整性作为诊断安全的可测量维度进行操作[联合委员会,国家患者安全目标:改善医疗保健诊断2024-2026,联合委员会,Oakbrook Terrace, IL, 2024]。它为临床医生、教育工作者和安全团队提供了实用的工具来检测叙事丢失,减少诊断错误希夫,O. Hasan, S. Kim, R. Abrams, K. Cosby, B.L. Lambert等人,医学诊断错误:分析583个医生报告的错误,实习医生169 (2009)1881-1887;P. Croskerry,认知错误在诊断中的重要性和减少认知错误的策略,Acad Med 78 (2003) 775-780;H. Singh, A.N.D. Meyer, E.J. Thomas,门诊护理诊断错误的频率,中华医学杂志,23 (2014)727-731;陈晓明,陈晓明,陈晓明。内科诊断差错与患者信任的关系研究[j] .中华医学杂志,2005,(5):557 - 557。Levinson, D.L. Roter, J.P. Mullooly, V.T. Dull, R.M. Frankel,医患沟通:与医疗事故索赔的关系,美国医学杂志(1997):553-559。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书