BMJ Quality & Safety最新文献

{"title":"Pragmatic randomised trial assessing the impact of peer comparison and therapeutic recommendations, including repetition, on antibiotic prescribing patterns of family physicians across British Columbia for uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections.","authors":"Greg Carney, Malcolm Maclure, David M Patrick, Jessica Otte, Anshula Ambasta, Wade Thompson, Colin Dormuth","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017296","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of a personalised audit and feedback prescribing report (AF) and brief educational summary (ES) on empiric treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (UTIs) by family physicians (FPs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cluster randomised control trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The intervention was conducted in British Columbia, Canada between 23 September 2021 and 28 March 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>We randomised 5073 FPs into a standard AF and ES intervention arm (n=1691), an ES-only arm (n=1691) and a control arm (n=1691).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The AF contained personalised and peer-comparison data on first-line antibiotic prescriptions for women with uncomplicated lower UTI and key therapeutic recommendations. The ES contained detailed, evidence-based UTI management recommendations, incorporated regional antibiotic resistance data and recommended nitrofurantoin as a first-line treatment.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Nitrofurantoin as first-line pharmacological treatment for uncomplicated lower UTI, analysed using an intention-to-treat approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 21 307 cases of uncomplicated lower UTI among the three trial arms during the study period. The impact of receiving both the AF and ES increased the relative probability of prescribing nitrofurantoin as first-line treatment for uncomplicated lower UTI by 28% (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.52), relative to the delay arm. This translates to additional prescribing of nitrofurantoin as first-line treatment, instead of alternates, in an additional 8.7 cases of uncomplicated UTI per 100 FPs during the 6-month study period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AF prescribing data with educational materials can improve primary care prescribing of antibiotics for uncomplicated lower UTI.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05817253.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142457766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rising above the strain? Adaptive strategies used by healthcare providers in intensive care units to promote safety.","authors":"Debbie Massey, Brigid M Gillespie","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017813","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142387874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors affecting implementation of a National Clinical Programme for self-harm in hospital emergency departments: a qualitative study.","authors":"Selena O'Connell, Grace Cully, Sheena McHugh, Margaret Maxwell, Anne Jeffers, Katerina Kavalidou, Sally Lovejoy, Rhona Jennings, Vincent Russell, Ella Arensman, Eve Griffin","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017415","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A substantial number of people experiencing self-harm or suicidal ideation present to hospital emergency departments (EDs). In 2014, a National Clinical Programme was introduced in EDs in Ireland to standardise care provision. Internationally, there has been limited research on the factors affecting the implementation of care for people who present with mental health crises in EDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study examined factors influencing the implementation of the National Clinical Programme for Self-harm and Suicide-related Ideation in 15 hospitals in Ireland from early (2015-2017) through to later implementation (2019-2022). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff involved in programme delivery, with the topic guide and thematic analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 participants completed interviews: nurse specialists (n=16), consultant psychiatrists (n=6), nursing managers (n=2), emergency medicine staff (n=2) and members of the national programme team (n=4). Enablers of implementation included the introduction of national, standardised guidance for EDs; implementation strategies led by the national programme team; and training and support for nurse specialists. The following inner-setting factors were perceived as barriers to implementation in some hospitals: limited access to a designated assessment room, delayed access to clinical input and poor collaboration with ED staff. Overall, these barriers dissipated over time, owing to implementation strategies at national and local levels. The varied availability of aftercare impacted providers' ability to deliver the programme and the adaptability of programme delivery had a mixed impact across hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The perceived value of the programme and national leadership helped to advance implementation. Strategies related to ongoing training and education, developing stakeholder interrelationships and evaluation and monitoring have helped address implementation barriers and promote continued sustainment of the programme. Continued efforts are needed to support nurse specialists delivering the programme and foster partnerships with community providers to improve the transition to aftercare.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142387872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient-activated escalation in hospital: patients and their families are ready!","authors":"Christian Peter Subbe, Alison V Phillips, Lorelei Jones","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017486","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142387873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"WHO research agenda on the role of the institutional safety climate for hand hygiene improvement: a Delphi consensus-building study.","authors":"Ermira Tartari, Julie Storr, Nita Bellare, Claire Kilpatrick, Maryanne McGuckin, Mitchell J Schwaber, Didier Pittet, Benedetta Allegranzi","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017162","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017162","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Creating and sustaining an institutional climate conducive to patient and health worker safety is a critical element of successful multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategies aimed at achieving best practices. Repeated WHO global surveys indicate that the institutional safety climate consistently ranks the lowest among various interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To develop an international expert consensus on research agenda priorities related to the role of institutional safety climate within the context of a multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategy, we conducted a structured consensus process involving a purposive sample of international experts. A preliminary list of research priorities was formulated following evidence mapping, and subsequently refined through a modified Delphi consensus process involving two rounds. In round 1, survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of each research priority. In round 2, experts reviewed round 1 ratings to reach a consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final prioritised items to be included in the research agenda. The research priorities were then reviewed and finalised by members of the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Hand Hygiene Research in Healthcare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 57 invited participants, 50 completed Delphi round 1 (88%), and 48 completed round 2 (96%). Thirty-six research priority statements were included in round 1 across five thematic categories: (1) safety climate; (2) personal accountability for hand hygiene; (3) leadership; (4) patient participation and empowerment and (5) religion and traditions. In round 1, 75% of the items achieved consensus, with 9 statements carried forward to round 2, leading to a final set of 31 prioritised research statements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This research agenda can be used by researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and funding bodies to address gaps in hand hygiene improvement within the context of an institutional safety climate, thereby enhancing patient and health worker safety globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142375103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Anuj K Dalal, Savanna Plombon, Kaitlyn Konieczny, Daniel Motta-Calderon, Maria Malik, Alison Garber, Alyssa Lam, Nicholas Piniella, Marie Leeson, Pamela Garabedian, Abhishek Goyal, Stephanie Roulier, Cathy Yoon, Julie M Fiskio, Kumiko O Schnock, Ronen Rozenblum, Jacqueline Griffin, Jeffrey L Schnipper, Stuart Lipsitz, David W Bates","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017183","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse event surveillance approaches underestimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors (DEs) related to hospital care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of a stratified sample of patients hospitalised on general medicine using four criteria: transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), death within 90 days, complex clinical events, and none of the aforementioned high-risk criteria. Cases in higher-risk subgroups were over-sampled in predefined percentages. Each case was reviewed by two adjudicators trained to judge the likelihood of DE using the Safer Dx instrument; characterise harm, preventability and severity; and identify associated process failures using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy modified for acute care. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainty about DE or impact were reviewed by an expert panel. We used descriptive statistics to report population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs by demographic variables based on the weighted sample, and characteristics of harmful DEs. Multivariable models were used to adjust association of process failures with harmful DEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9147 eligible cases, 675 were randomly sampled within each subgroup: 100% of ICU transfers, 38.5% of deaths within 90 days, 7% of cases with complex clinical events and 2.4% of cases without high-risk criteria. Based on the weighted sample, the population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs were 7.2% (95% CI 4.66 to 9.80), 6.1% (95% CI 3.79 to 8.50) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.55 to 1.68), respectively. Harmful DEs were frequently characterised as delays (61.9%). Severely harmful DEs were frequent in high-risk cases (55.1%). In multivariable models, process failures in assessment, diagnostic testing, subspecialty consultation, patient experience, and history were significantly associated with harmful DEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We estimate that a harmful DE occurred in 1 of every 14 patients hospitalised on general medicine, the majority of which were preventable. Our findings underscore the need for novel approaches for adverse DE surveillance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142364294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial intelligence-powered chatbots in search engines: a cross-sectional study on the quality and risks of drug information for patients.","authors":"Wahram Andrikyan, Sophie Marie Sametinger, Frithjof Kosfeld, Lea Jung-Poppe, Martin F Fromm, Renke Maas, Hagen F Nicolaus","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017476","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Search engines often serve as a primary resource for patients to obtain drug information. However, the search engine market is rapidly changing due to the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots. The consequences for medication safety when patients interact with chatbots remain largely unexplored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the quality and potential safety concerns of answers provided by an AI-powered chatbot integrated within a search engine.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Bing copilot was queried on 10 frequently asked patient questions regarding the 50 most prescribed drugs in the US outpatient market. Patient questions covered drug indications, mechanisms of action, instructions for use, adverse drug reactions and contraindications. Readability of chatbot answers was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score. Completeness and accuracy were evaluated based on corresponding patient drug information in the pharmaceutical encyclopaedia drugs.com. On a preselected subset of inaccurate chatbot answers, healthcare professionals evaluated likelihood and extent of possible harm if patients follow the chatbot's given recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 500 generated chatbot answers, overall readability implied that responses were difficult to read according to the Flesch Reading Ease Score. Overall median completeness and accuracy of chatbot answers were 100.0% (IQR 50.0-100.0%) and 100.0% (IQR 88.1-100.0%), respectively. Of the subset of 20 chatbot answers, experts found 66% (95% CI 50% to 85%) to be potentially harmful. 42% (95% CI 25% to 60%) of these 20 chatbot answers were found to potentially cause moderate to mild harm, and 22% (95% CI 10% to 40%) to cause severe harm or even death if patients follow the chatbot's advice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-powered chatbots are capable of providing overall complete and accurate patient drug information. Yet, experts deemed a considerable number of answers incorrect or potentially harmful. Furthermore, complexity of chatbot answers may limit patient understanding. Hence, healthcare professionals should be cautious in recommending AI-powered search engines until more precise and reliable alternatives are available.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142364304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do healthcare professionals work around safety standards, and should we be worried? A scoping review.","authors":"Debbie Clark, Rebecca Lawton, Ruth Baxter, Laura Sheard, Jane K O'Hara","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017546","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare staff adapt to challenges faced when delivering healthcare by using workarounds. Sometimes, safety standards, the very things used to routinely mitigate risk in healthcare, are the obstacles that staff work around. While workarounds have negative connotations, there is an argument that, in some circumstances, they contribute to the delivery of safe care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this scoping review, we explore the circumstances and perceived implications of safety standard workarounds (SSWAs) conducted in the delivery of frontline care.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science for articles reporting on the circumstances and perceived implications of SSWAs in healthcare. Data charting was undertaken by two researchers. A narrative synthesis was developed to produce a summary of findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 27 papers in the review, which reported on workarounds of 21 safety standards. Over half of the papers (59%) described working around standards related to medicine safety. As medication standards featured frequently in papers, SSWAs were reported to be performed by registered nurses in 67% of papers, doctors in 41% of papers and pharmacists in 19% of papers. Organisational causes were the most prominent reason for workarounds.Papers reported on the perceived impact of SSWAs for care quality. At times SSWAs were being used to support the delivery of person-centred, timely, efficient and effective care. Implications of SSWAs for safety were diverse. Some papers reported SSWAs had both positive and negative implications for safety simultaneously. SSWAs were reported to be beneficial for patients more often than they were detrimental.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SSWAs are used frequently during the delivery of everyday care, particularly during medication-related processes. These workarounds are often used to balance different risks and, in some circumstances, to achieve safe care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142341462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prevention in adults of transmission of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms: an updated systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV.","authors":"Sean McCarthy, Aneesa Motala, Paul G Shekelle","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017545","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) remain a high priority patient safety topic, despite broad acceptance as standard-of-care safety practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Prior editions of Making Healthcare Safer have mixed certainty evidence for various other patient safety practices.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV, we performed an updated systematic review on the certainty of evidence for the following safety practices at reducing in-facility MDRO infections in adult patients: universal gloving, contact precautions, cohorting, environmental decontamination, patient decolonisation and the adverse effects of isolation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library 2011-May 2023 for systematic reviews and original research studies, both randomised and observational. Settings were limited to high-income countries. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three systematic reviews and three original research studies provided moderate certainty evidence that patient decolonisation reduced MDRO infections, although restricted to certain populations and organisms. One systematic review provided low certainty evidence that universal gloving was beneficial, again limited to certain populations. One systematic review and two original research studies provided low certainty evidence of benefit for environmental decontamination. One systematic review and one new original study provided low certainty evidence of benefit for cohorting in outbreak settings, and very low certainty evidence of benefit in endemic settings. Six original research studies provide mixed evidence for benefit of contact precautions. There is very low certainty evidence of a signal of increased non-infectious adverse events under patients in contact isolation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In general, the reviewed patient safety practices reduced MDRO infections, but certainty of evidence was low.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023444973.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142341463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Common contributing factors of diagnostic error: A retrospective analysis of 109 serious adverse event reports from Dutch hospitals.","authors":"Jacky Hooftman, Aart Cornelis Dijkstra, Ilse Suurmeijer, Akke van der Bij, Ellen Paap, Laura Zwaan","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015876","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015876","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although diagnostic errors have gained renewed focus within the patient safety domain, measuring them remains a challenge. They are often measured using methods that lack information on decision-making processes given by involved physicians (eg, record reviews). The current study analyses serious adverse event (SAE) reports from Dutch hospitals to identify common contributing factors of diagnostic errors in hospital medicine. These reports are the results of thorough investigations by highly trained, independent hospital committees into the causes of SAEs. The reports include information from involved healthcare professionals and patients or family obtained through interviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All 71 Dutch hospitals were invited to participate in this study. Participating hospitals were asked to send four diagnostic SAE reports of their hospital. Researchers applied the Safer Dx Instrument, a Generic Analysis Framework, the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy and the Eindhoven Classification Model (ECM) to analyse reports.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one hospitals submitted 109 eligible reports. Diagnostic errors most often occurred in the diagnostic testing, assessment and follow-up phases according to the DEER taxonomy. The ECM showed human errors as the most common contributing factor, especially relating to communication of results, task planning and execution, and knowledge. Combining the most common DEER subcategories and the most common ECM classes showed that clinical reasoning errors resulted from failures in knowledge, and task planning and execution. Follow-up errors and errors with communication of test results resulted from failures in coordination and monitoring, often accompanied by usability issues in electronic health record design and missing protocols.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Diagnostic errors occurred in every hospital type, in different specialties and with different care teams. While clinical reasoning errors remain a common problem, often caused by knowledge and skill gaps, other frequent errors in communication of test results and follow-up require different improvement measures (eg, improving technological systems).</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503095/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10020547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}