Mary A Hill,Tess Coppinger,Kimia Sedig,William J Gallagher,Kelley M Baker,Helen Haskell,Kristen E Miller,Kelly M Smith
{"title":"\"还能是什么?患者在整个诊断过程中应询问的问题范围综述》(A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process.","authors":"Mary A Hill,Tess Coppinger,Kimia Sedig,William J Gallagher,Kelley M Baker,Helen Haskell,Kristen E Miller,Kelly M Smith","doi":"10.1097/pts.0000000000001273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nDiagnostic errors are a global patient safety challenge. Over 75% of diagnostic errors in ambulatory care result from breakdowns in patient-clinician communication. Encouraging patients to speak up and ask questions has been recommended as one strategy to mitigate these failures.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVES\r\nThe goal of the scoping review was to identify, summarize, and thematically map questions patients are recommended to ask during ambulatory encounters along the diagnostic process. This is the first step in a larger study to co-design a patient-facing question prompt list for patients to use throughout the diagnostic process.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nMedline and Google Scholar were searched to identify question lists in the peer-reviewed literature. Organizational websites and a search engine were searched to identify question lists in the gray literature. Articles and resources were screened for eligibility and data were abstracted. Interrater reliability (K = 0.875) was achieved.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 5509 questions from 235 resources met inclusion criteria. Most questions (n = 4243, 77.02%) were found in the gray literature. Question lists included an average of 23.44 questions. Questions were most commonly coded along the diagnostic process categories of treatment (2434 questions from 250 resources), communication of the diagnosis (1160 questions, 204 resources), and outcomes (766 questions, 172 resources).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nDespite recommendations for patients to ask questions, most question prompt lists focus on later stages of the diagnostic process such as communication of the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Further research is needed to identify and prioritize diagnostic-related questions from the patient perspective and to develop simple, usable guidance on question-asking to improve patient safety across the diagnostic continuum.","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"What Else Could It Be?\\\" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process.\",\"authors\":\"Mary A Hill,Tess Coppinger,Kimia Sedig,William J Gallagher,Kelley M Baker,Helen Haskell,Kristen E Miller,Kelly M Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/pts.0000000000001273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nDiagnostic errors are a global patient safety challenge. Over 75% of diagnostic errors in ambulatory care result from breakdowns in patient-clinician communication. Encouraging patients to speak up and ask questions has been recommended as one strategy to mitigate these failures.\\r\\n\\r\\nOBJECTIVES\\r\\nThe goal of the scoping review was to identify, summarize, and thematically map questions patients are recommended to ask during ambulatory encounters along the diagnostic process. This is the first step in a larger study to co-design a patient-facing question prompt list for patients to use throughout the diagnostic process.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nMedline and Google Scholar were searched to identify question lists in the peer-reviewed literature. Organizational websites and a search engine were searched to identify question lists in the gray literature. Articles and resources were screened for eligibility and data were abstracted. Interrater reliability (K = 0.875) was achieved.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nA total of 5509 questions from 235 resources met inclusion criteria. Most questions (n = 4243, 77.02%) were found in the gray literature. Question lists included an average of 23.44 questions. Questions were most commonly coded along the diagnostic process categories of treatment (2434 questions from 250 resources), communication of the diagnosis (1160 questions, 204 resources), and outcomes (766 questions, 172 resources).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nDespite recommendations for patients to ask questions, most question prompt lists focus on later stages of the diagnostic process such as communication of the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Further research is needed to identify and prioritize diagnostic-related questions from the patient perspective and to develop simple, usable guidance on question-asking to improve patient safety across the diagnostic continuum.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000001273\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000001273","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process.
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic errors are a global patient safety challenge. Over 75% of diagnostic errors in ambulatory care result from breakdowns in patient-clinician communication. Encouraging patients to speak up and ask questions has been recommended as one strategy to mitigate these failures.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of the scoping review was to identify, summarize, and thematically map questions patients are recommended to ask during ambulatory encounters along the diagnostic process. This is the first step in a larger study to co-design a patient-facing question prompt list for patients to use throughout the diagnostic process.
METHODS
Medline and Google Scholar were searched to identify question lists in the peer-reviewed literature. Organizational websites and a search engine were searched to identify question lists in the gray literature. Articles and resources were screened for eligibility and data were abstracted. Interrater reliability (K = 0.875) was achieved.
RESULTS
A total of 5509 questions from 235 resources met inclusion criteria. Most questions (n = 4243, 77.02%) were found in the gray literature. Question lists included an average of 23.44 questions. Questions were most commonly coded along the diagnostic process categories of treatment (2434 questions from 250 resources), communication of the diagnosis (1160 questions, 204 resources), and outcomes (766 questions, 172 resources).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite recommendations for patients to ask questions, most question prompt lists focus on later stages of the diagnostic process such as communication of the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Further research is needed to identify and prioritize diagnostic-related questions from the patient perspective and to develop simple, usable guidance on question-asking to improve patient safety across the diagnostic continuum.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.