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}
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.
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