环境因素对同一专业医生管理的患者诊断错误发生率的影响:一项单中心回顾性观察研究。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yukinori Harada, Yumi Otaka, Shinichi Katsukura, Taro Shimizu
{"title":"环境因素对同一专业医生管理的患者诊断错误发生率的影响:一项单中心回顾性观察研究。","authors":"Yukinori Harada, Yumi Otaka, Shinichi Katsukura, Taro Shimizu","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been growing recognition that contextual factors influence the physician's cognitive processes. However, given that cognitive processes may depend on the physicians' specialties, the effects of contextual factors on diagnostic errors reported in previous studies could be confounded by difference in physicians.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to clarify whether contextual factors such as location and consultation type affect diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the medical records of 1992 consecutive outpatients consulted by physicians from the Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine in a university hospital between 1 January and 31 December 2019. Diagnostic processes were assessed using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument. Patients were categorised into three groups according to contextual factors (location and consultation type): (1) referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department; (2) patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department; and (3) patients with emergency visit to the emergency room. The effect of the contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors was investigated using logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diagnostic errors were observed in 12 of 534 referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department (2.2%), 3 of 599 patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (0.5%) and 13 of 859 patients with emergency visit to the emergency room (1.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a significantly higher prevalence of diagnostic errors in referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department than in patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (OR 4.08, p=0.03), but no difference between patients with emergency and urgent visit to the emergency room and outpatient department, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Contextual factors such as consultation type may affect diagnostic errors; however, since the differences in the prevalence of diagnostic errors were small, the effect of contextual factors on diagnostic accuracy may be small in physicians working in different care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors among patients managed by physicians of the same specialty: a single-centre retrospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Yukinori Harada, Yumi Otaka, Shinichi Katsukura, Taro Shimizu\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been growing recognition that contextual factors influence the physician's cognitive processes. However, given that cognitive processes may depend on the physicians' specialties, the effects of contextual factors on diagnostic errors reported in previous studies could be confounded by difference in physicians.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to clarify whether contextual factors such as location and consultation type affect diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the medical records of 1992 consecutive outpatients consulted by physicians from the Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine in a university hospital between 1 January and 31 December 2019. Diagnostic processes were assessed using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument. Patients were categorised into three groups according to contextual factors (location and consultation type): (1) referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department; (2) patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department; and (3) patients with emergency visit to the emergency room. The effect of the contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors was investigated using logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diagnostic errors were observed in 12 of 534 referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department (2.2%), 3 of 599 patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (0.5%) and 13 of 859 patients with emergency visit to the emergency room (1.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a significantly higher prevalence of diagnostic errors in referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department than in patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (OR 4.08, p=0.03), but no difference between patients with emergency and urgent visit to the emergency room and outpatient department, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Contextual factors such as consultation type may affect diagnostic errors; however, since the differences in the prevalence of diagnostic errors were small, the effect of contextual factors on diagnostic accuracy may be small in physicians working in different care settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015436\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015436","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:越来越多的人认识到,环境因素会影响医生的认知过程。然而,鉴于认知过程可能取决于医生的专业,以往研究中报告的情境因素对诊断错误的影响可能会被医生的差异所混淆:本研究旨在阐明地点和就诊类型等环境因素是否会影响诊断准确性:我们查阅了某大学附属医院诊断与全科医学科医生在 2019 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间为 1992 名连续门诊患者提供的医疗记录。我们使用 "修订版安全诊断工具 "对诊断过程进行了评估。根据环境因素(地点和就诊类型)将患者分为三组:(1)预约到门诊部就诊的转诊患者;(2)紧急到门诊部就诊的患者;(3)紧急到急诊室就诊的患者。采用逻辑回归分析法研究了环境因素对诊断错误发生率的影响:结果:在 534 名预约门诊的转诊患者中,有 12 人(2.2%)出现诊断错误;在 599 名急诊患者中,有 3 人(0.5%)出现诊断错误;在 859 名急诊患者中,有 13 人(1.5%)出现诊断错误。多变量逻辑回归分析表明,预约到门诊部就诊的转诊患者诊断错误的发生率明显高于紧急到门诊部就诊的患者(OR 4.08,P=0.03),但急诊和紧急到急诊室就诊的患者与门诊部就诊的患者分别没有差异:结论:就诊类型等环境因素可能会影响诊断错误;然而,由于诊断错误发生率的差异很小,因此环境因素对在不同医疗环境中工作的医生诊断准确性的影响可能很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors among patients managed by physicians of the same specialty: a single-centre retrospective observational study.

Background: There has been growing recognition that contextual factors influence the physician's cognitive processes. However, given that cognitive processes may depend on the physicians' specialties, the effects of contextual factors on diagnostic errors reported in previous studies could be confounded by difference in physicians.

Objective: This study aimed to clarify whether contextual factors such as location and consultation type affect diagnostic accuracy.

Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 1992 consecutive outpatients consulted by physicians from the Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine in a university hospital between 1 January and 31 December 2019. Diagnostic processes were assessed using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument. Patients were categorised into three groups according to contextual factors (location and consultation type): (1) referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department; (2) patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department; and (3) patients with emergency visit to the emergency room. The effect of the contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors was investigated using logistic regression analysis.

Results: Diagnostic errors were observed in 12 of 534 referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department (2.2%), 3 of 599 patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (0.5%) and 13 of 859 patients with emergency visit to the emergency room (1.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a significantly higher prevalence of diagnostic errors in referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department than in patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (OR 4.08, p=0.03), but no difference between patients with emergency and urgent visit to the emergency room and outpatient department, respectively.

Conclusion: Contextual factors such as consultation type may affect diagnostic errors; however, since the differences in the prevalence of diagnostic errors were small, the effect of contextual factors on diagnostic accuracy may be small in physicians working in different care settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信