实施捆绑计划以改善住院病人的诊断:经验教训。

IF 2.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Diagnosis Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1515/dx-2024-0099
Ashwin Gupta, Martha Quinn, M Todd Greene, Karen E Fowler, Vineet Chopra
{"title":"实施捆绑计划以改善住院病人的诊断:经验教训。","authors":"Ashwin Gupta, Martha Quinn, M Todd Greene, Karen E Fowler, Vineet Chopra","doi":"10.1515/dx-2024-0099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The inpatient setting is a challenging clinical environment where systems and situational factors predispose clinicians to making diagnostic errors. Environmental complexities limit trialing of interventions to improve diagnostic error in active inpatient clinical settings. Informed by prior work, we piloted a multi-component intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error to understand its feasibility and uptake.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 2018 to June 2019, we conducted a prospective, pre-test/post-test pilot study of hospital medicine physicians during admitting shifts at a tertiary-care, academic medical center. Optional intervention components included use of dedicated workspaces, privacy barriers, noise cancelling headphones, application-based breathing exercises, a differential diagnosis expander application, and a checklist to enable a diagnostic pause. Participants rated their confidence in patient diagnoses and completed a survey on intervention component use. Data on provider resource utilization and patient diagnoses were collected, and qualitative interviews were held with a subset of participants in order to better understand experience with the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 37 physicians and 160 patients were included. No intervention component was utilized by more than 50 % of providers, and no differences were noted in diagnostic confidence or number of diagnoses documented pre-vs. post-intervention. Lab utilization increased, but there were no other differences in resource utilization during the intervention. Qualitative feedback highlighted workflow integration challenges, among others, for poor intervention uptake.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our pilot study demonstrated poor feasibility and uptake of an intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error. This study highlights the unique challenges of implementing solutions within busy clinical environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of a bundle to improve diagnosis in hospitalized patients: lessons learned.\",\"authors\":\"Ashwin Gupta, Martha Quinn, M Todd Greene, Karen E Fowler, Vineet Chopra\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/dx-2024-0099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The inpatient setting is a challenging clinical environment where systems and situational factors predispose clinicians to making diagnostic errors. Environmental complexities limit trialing of interventions to improve diagnostic error in active inpatient clinical settings. Informed by prior work, we piloted a multi-component intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error to understand its feasibility and uptake.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 2018 to June 2019, we conducted a prospective, pre-test/post-test pilot study of hospital medicine physicians during admitting shifts at a tertiary-care, academic medical center. Optional intervention components included use of dedicated workspaces, privacy barriers, noise cancelling headphones, application-based breathing exercises, a differential diagnosis expander application, and a checklist to enable a diagnostic pause. Participants rated their confidence in patient diagnoses and completed a survey on intervention component use. Data on provider resource utilization and patient diagnoses were collected, and qualitative interviews were held with a subset of participants in order to better understand experience with the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 37 physicians and 160 patients were included. No intervention component was utilized by more than 50 % of providers, and no differences were noted in diagnostic confidence or number of diagnoses documented pre-vs. post-intervention. Lab utilization increased, but there were no other differences in resource utilization during the intervention. Qualitative feedback highlighted workflow integration challenges, among others, for poor intervention uptake.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our pilot study demonstrated poor feasibility and uptake of an intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error. This study highlights the unique challenges of implementing solutions within busy clinical environments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnosis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"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-2024-0099\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0099","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

摘要

目的:住院环境是一个具有挑战性的临床环境,系统和情景因素容易导致临床医生出现诊断错误。环境的复杂性限制了在活跃的住院临床环境中试用干预措施来改善诊断错误。受先前工作的启发,我们试行了一项旨在减少诊断错误的多成分干预措施,以了解其可行性和接受度:从 2018 年 9 月到 2019 年 6 月,我们在一家三级医疗学术医疗中心的入院轮班期间,对医院内科医生进行了一项前瞻性、前测/后测试点研究。可选的干预内容包括使用专用工作空间、隐私屏障、降噪耳机、基于应用的呼吸练习、鉴别诊断扩展器应用以及可暂停诊断的核对表。参与者对自己对患者诊断的信心进行了评分,并完成了一项关于干预组件使用情况的调查。此外,还收集了有关医疗机构资源利用率和患者诊断的数据,并对部分参与者进行了定性访谈,以更好地了解他们的干预经验:结果:包括 37 名医生和 160 名患者的数据。没有超过 50% 的医疗服务提供者使用干预措施,在诊断信心或诊断记录数量方面,干预前与干预后没有差异。实验室利用率有所提高,但干预期间资源利用率没有其他差异。定性反馈强调了工作流程整合方面的挑战,以及其他导致干预接受度低的原因:我们的试点研究表明,旨在减少诊断错误的干预措施的可行性和接受度都很低。这项研究强调了在繁忙的临床环境中实施解决方案所面临的独特挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementation of a bundle to improve diagnosis in hospitalized patients: lessons learned.

Objectives: The inpatient setting is a challenging clinical environment where systems and situational factors predispose clinicians to making diagnostic errors. Environmental complexities limit trialing of interventions to improve diagnostic error in active inpatient clinical settings. Informed by prior work, we piloted a multi-component intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error to understand its feasibility and uptake.

Methods: From September 2018 to June 2019, we conducted a prospective, pre-test/post-test pilot study of hospital medicine physicians during admitting shifts at a tertiary-care, academic medical center. Optional intervention components included use of dedicated workspaces, privacy barriers, noise cancelling headphones, application-based breathing exercises, a differential diagnosis expander application, and a checklist to enable a diagnostic pause. Participants rated their confidence in patient diagnoses and completed a survey on intervention component use. Data on provider resource utilization and patient diagnoses were collected, and qualitative interviews were held with a subset of participants in order to better understand experience with the intervention.

Results: Data from 37 physicians and 160 patients were included. No intervention component was utilized by more than 50 % of providers, and no differences were noted in diagnostic confidence or number of diagnoses documented pre-vs. post-intervention. Lab utilization increased, but there were no other differences in resource utilization during the intervention. Qualitative feedback highlighted workflow integration challenges, among others, for poor intervention uptake.

Conclusions: Our pilot study demonstrated poor feasibility and uptake of an intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error. This study highlights the unique challenges of implementing solutions within busy clinical environments.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信