Understanding and Communicating Uncertainty in Achieving Diagnostic Excellence

Identifying opportunities for shared decision-making through patients' and physicians' perceptions on the diagnostic process: A qualitative analysis of malpractice claims in general practice

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered the preferred communication model, yet its applicability in the diagnostic process is understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinical situations in the diagnostic process that could benefit from SDM.

METHODS

An observational study of closed malpractice claims against general practitioners (2012-2020) related to problems of diagnosis, obtained from a liability insurance company in the Netherlands. We established SDM-selection criteria, specified for the diagnostic process (i.e. diagnostic uncertainty, multiple options and clinical equipoise). Phase 1: We selected and categorised eligible cases, using summarised information from a claim database. Phase 2: We analysed 90 fully documented claims and extracted information from GPs and patients related to the diagnostic process. Using this data, we conducted an inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Phase 1: 261 out of 1477 claims (18%) met the SDM-selection criteria. The main reason for complaints was (omitted) test-ordering (155 claims, 59.4%). The most frequent final diagnoses were: fracture (49%), malignancy (10%), infection (9%), tendon rupture (8%) and cardiovascular disease (4%). Phase 2: Six types of diagnostic considerations emerged from the data: diagnostic uncertainty, using time as a diagnostic tool, management consequences, information about test indication or procedure, indications for re-evaluation and individual patient context. Contradictory statements from GPs and patients demonstrated a lack of shared understanding.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic process could benefit from SDM in several areas, including discussing diagnostic options, test conditions (e.g. timing and procedure) and follow-up. SDM training programs should be tailored to encourage clinicians to apply SDM in diagnostic decisions.

Implementation of a curriculum on communicating diagnostic uncertainty for clerkship-level medical students: a pseudorandomized and controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Physicians rarely receive formal training on communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients. Best practices in timing and educational strategies are not established. We aimed to develop, implement and assess a curriculum on communicating uncertainty for medical students.

METHODS

This was a pseudorandomized and controlled study. Students on their Internal Medicine Clerkship during the study period from February to August 2023 were invited to participate and separated into control and intervention groups based on assigned rotation site. Students in the intervention group received a curriculum on communicating diagnostic uncertainty. All students completed a subscale of the Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty Scale (PRUS) at the beginning of their clerkship and at the end of week 4 and an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) at the end of week 4.

RESULTS

Fifty-four students participated in the curriculum (29 intervention, 25 control). Intervention group students scored 2.13 points higher than control group students on their skills assessment (mean OSCE for intervention group=14.3, control group=12.17, p<0.001). PRUS increased in both groups, indicating improved tolerance of uncertainty, with no significant difference in change in PRUS between groups (mean change in PRUS for intervention group=2.68, control group=4.82, p=0.33). 97.7 % of students agreed that a curriculum on uncertainty should be included in their medical training.

CONCLUSIONS

Students who participated in a curriculum on communication of uncertainty demonstrated superior skills in communicating uncertainty during their OSCE. There was a significant increase in PRUS indicating decreased stress associated with uncertainty for all students. This may reflect high levels of baseline stress associated with starting a clerkship, maturation, exposure to cases, or role-modeling by the clinical team.

Expression of patient and caregiver uncertainty in view of decision-making in online health communities

OBJECTIVES

On the backdrop of the current debate on shared-decision making in healthcare, we are interested in understanding how uncertainty is managed when patients and/or their caregivers resort to online health communities (OHCs) for advice regarding decisions on aspects of the disease they are not fully sure of. More specifically, we present initial results concerning the expression of uncertainty in OHCs regarding decisions that have to be made about a specific illness. Our goal is to observe how patients and/or their caregivers express uncertainty regarding information they received from specialists. This can help us understand how non-experts try to cope with information they do not fully understand.

METHODS

Based on a collection of interactional data taken from two Italian OHCs, our analysis focuses on the sequences in which someone asks for advice on a certain line of action and obtains an answer. We follow a mainly qualitative approach, which includes case-based qualitative analyses. More specifically, we observe uses and functions of some lexical items (evidentemente (lit., evidently), teoricamente (lit., theoretically)) and syntactic structures (specifically clauses containing the verb dire (to say)) that convey a sense of uncertainty in relation to information provided by others.

RESULTS

Our results show different types of uncertainty, providing insights into the effort non-experts make in dealing with expert knowledge and unclear situations determined by the illness and its management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our results can be used to improve healthcare professionals' training regarding their role as mediators between specialized and everyday knowledge.

How the clinical encounter shapes diagnostic uncertainty in pediatric chronic pain

Approximately one third of youth with chronic primary pain receiving care in a tertiary care pediatric pain setting, and their parents, report diagnostic uncertainty, which is associated with poorer child pain outcomes and is intricately tied to clinical communication along the pain care journey. This study utilized archived data (collected 2003-2006) to explore components of the clinical encounter that influence diagnostic uncertainty among youth with chronic pain and their parents. Twenty-three youth with chronic primary pain and at least one of their parents who presented for an initial visit at a tertiary pediatric pain clinic participated. Initial clinic intake visits were audio and video recorded, and youth and parents participated in semi-structured interviews prior to, and several months following, their intake appointment. Transcripts of clinical encounters and pre- and post-interviews were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Analyses generated four themes: 1) Diagnostic uncertainty is a social phenomenon critically shaped in clinical encounters; 2) (In)validation of pain, the journey, and diagnostic uncertainty; 3) The (missing) link between origin story & pain explanation; and 4) The fragility of certainty. These themes illustrate that youth's and parents' experiences of diagnostic uncertainty are complex, dynamic, and shaped within clinical encounters. The actions taken and explanations provided by clinicians in the clinical encounter can heighten or lower diagnostic uncertainty. Clinician communication, including (in)validation, messages of (un)certainty, elicitation of youth's and parents' pain origin stories and their connection to a pain explanation, influence diagnostic uncertainty and could be targets for assessment, training, and intervention.

To what extent should doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty with their patients? An empirical ethics vignette study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although diagnostic uncertainty is common, patient-focused research examining its communication is lacking. We aimed to determine patient preferences for the communication of diagnostic uncertainty, and examine the effects of such communication on patients.

METHODS

We applied an empirical ethics approach, integrating the data collected with ethical analysis to form normative recommendations about diagnostic uncertainty communication. In this randomised crossover study, n=111 members of the public sequentially watched two video vignettes depicting either high or low communicated diagnostic uncertainty, in one of two clinical scenarios. After watching videos, participants completed online questionnaires. Primary outcome was preferred video (high vs low communicated uncertainty); secondary outcomes included satisfaction, trust, worry and understanding. Quantitative data were analysed using logistic regression and a linear mixed effects model; qualitative data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Quantitative analysis demonstrated that participants preferred greater diagnostic uncertainty communication, even though these vignettes were more worrying. Qualitative data revealed heterogeneous participant views justifying their communication preferences. These data raise issues relating to how doctors might balance harms versus benefits in diagnostic uncertainty communication and how doctors might communicate in the face of heterogeneous patient information preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that doctors should err on the side of greater diagnostic uncertainty communication: to not do so (eg, based on benign paternalistic ideas about avoiding patient worry) or to do so variably (eg, based on unevidenced assumptions about patient information preferences) risks depriving patients of information they may value and may create or exacerbate inequalities.

On being on the same page: Predictors of gastroenterologist-patient misalignment in inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVES

This study explored the prevalence and degree of misalignment between gastroenterologists and people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and investigated communication features related to misalignment.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach incorporated qualitative and quantitative analyses of consultations and post-consultation patient and doctor interviews. Gastroenterologists at two Australian teaching hospitals and IBD patients participated in this study. Doctor-patient misalignment about topics discussed in consultations was quantified using patient and doctor interviews. Predictors of misalignment were hypothesised through a linguistic analysis of consultations and tested quantitatively.

RESULTS

Data from 69 patients and seven gastroenterologists showed that consultation participants had different perceptions about at least one aspect of care in 36 % of the consultations. Predictors of misalignment included missing the opportunity to clarify an issue or concern and missing the opportunity to explain the rationale for a diagnosis or recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Staying on the topic until the patient is ready to move on and using so-called related messages in questions and explanations increases the likelihood of doctor-patient alignment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Generic and IBD-specific clinician- and patient-targeted interventions should cover strategies for adequately discussing patients' issues and concerns and clinicians' clinical reasoning. These strategies should also be considered in designing health promotion activities.

Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adverse event surveillance approaches underestimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors (DEs) related to hospital care.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Single-encounter elicitation framework for diagnostic excellence patient-reported measures: SEE-Dx-PRM

Objective

To create a conceptual framework for assessing patient-reported diagnostic excellence of a single diagnostic encounter.

Methods

We held multiple expert panel meetings to prioritize a priori identified diagnostically relevant patient-reported experience and outcome domains. We combined and synthesized expert feedback with our experience in measure development and the reflections of a patient focus group. We then developed the framework, SEE-Dx-PRM (Single-Encounter Elicitation Framework for Diagnostic Excellence Patient-Reported Measures).

Results

We defined the SEE-Dx-PRM's scope as intended for a single diagnostic encounter in emergency or urgent care, prospective and agnostic of the health condition, and with a timeframe of within several days up to a month from the encounter. The SEE-Dx-PRM's diagnostic excellence outcomes are: (1) accurate diagnosis and (2) either final, or working diagnosis, or specific next steps to establish diagnosis that were communicated and comprehended by patients. SEE-Dx-PRM encompasses 2 domains associated with accurate diagnosis, 5 domains of patient perception of iterative diagnostic process, 5 domains associated with communication and comprehension, and a domain associated with uncertainty.

Conclusion

SEE-Dx-PRM-informed measures might support quality improvement, prompt system response, and research on diagnostic excellence.

Innovation

SEE-Dx-PRM presents a novel patient-centered framework for the emerging diagnostic excellence construct and its measurement.

"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.

Communicating in Verse: How Reading Poetry Can Expand How We Care for Patients

It is a foundational principle of medical humanities that the appreciation of literature and other humanities enrich and expand medical training. But what are the mechanisms by which this happens? As a faculty member and former medical student, who met during an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional 5-session poetry seminar, we reflect on how poetry enriches our own experiences working with patients, as well as how we care for patients. Reading poetry in medicine has the potential to enhance observational skills, model an appreciation of uncertainties, and generate joy. Similar to our seminar, other institutions may also consider incorporating poetry into curricula.

Residents' Communication With Attendings About Uncertainty: A Single-Site Longitudinal Survey

OBJECTIVE

Managing uncertainty is a core competency of pediatric residents. However, discussing uncertainty with attending physicians can be challenging. Research is needed to understand residents' goals when communicating about uncertainty with attending physicians and how residents' perceptions of communication change during residency. Therefore, we assessed changes in residents' perceptions of their own ability to communicate uncertainty and their perceptions of attending physicians' willingness to discuss uncertainty effectively. We also identify residents' goals and challenges communicating uncertainty.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-year (2018-2021) survey with 2 cohorts of residents at a US children's hospital. Of the 106 eligible residents, 100 enrolled and completed Phase I (94% response rate), 61 of the enrolled residents completed Phase II (61% response rate), and 53 completed Phase III (53% response rate). We employed hierarchical linear modeling to account for clustering of the data (Phases within residents) and to assess changes in communication efficacy and target efficacy over time. We coded open-ended responses to identify residents' communication goals and challenges.

RESULTS

Communication efficacy and target efficacy significantly increased over time. Open-ended responses indicated that residents managed multiple task, identity, and relational goals. Residents described persistent challenges related to wanting to appear competent and working with attending physicians who were unwilling to discuss uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Although residents may grow more confident communicating uncertainty, such conversations are complex and can present challenges throughout residency. Our results support the value of training on communication about uncertainty, not only for residents, but also attending physicians.

Diagnostic Discordance, Uncertainty, and Treatment Ambiguity in Community-Acquired Pneumonia : A National Cohort Study of 115 U.S. Veterans Affairs Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice in community-acquired pneumonia often assumes an accurate initial diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the evolution of pneumonia diagnoses among patients hospitalized from the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN

Retrospective nationwide cohort.

SETTING

118 U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers.

PATIENTS

Aged 18 years or older and hospitalized from the ED between 1 January 2015 and 31 January 2022.

MEASUREMENTS

Discordances between initial pneumonia diagnosis, discharge diagnosis, and radiographic diagnosis identified by natural language processing of clinician text, diagnostic coding, and antimicrobial treatment. Expressions of uncertainty in clinical notes, patient illness severity, treatments, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among 2 383 899 hospitalizations, 13.3% received an initial or discharge diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia: 9.1% received an initial diagnosis and 10.0% received a discharge diagnosis. Discordances between initial and discharge occurred in 57%. Among patients discharged with a pneumonia diagnosis and positive initial chest image, 33% lacked an initial diagnosis. Among patients diagnosed initially, 36% lacked a discharge diagnosis and 21% lacked positive initial chest imaging. Uncertainty was frequently expressed in clinical notes (58% in ED; 48% at discharge); 27% received diuretics, 36% received corticosteroids, and 10% received antibiotics, corticosteroids, and diuretics within 24 hours. Patients with discordant diagnoses had greater uncertainty and received more additional treatments, but only patients lacking an initial pneumonia diagnosis had higher 30-day mortality than concordant patients (14.4% [95% CI, 14.1% to 14.7%] vs. 10.6% [CI, 10.4% to 10.7%]). Patients with diagnostic discordance were more likely to present to high-complexity facilities with high ED patient load and inpatient census.

LIMITATION

Retrospective analysis; did not examine causal relationships.

CONCLUSION

More than half of all patients hospitalized and treated for pneumonia had discordant diagnoses from initial presentation to discharge. Treatments for other diagnoses and expressions of uncertainty were common. These findings highlight the need to recognize diagnostic uncertainty and treatment ambiguity in research and practice of pneumonia-related care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns.

METHOD

We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions.

RESULTS

7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

Patient-Clinician Diagnostic Concordance upon Hospital Admission

OBJECTIVES

 This study aimed to pilot an application-based patient diagnostic questionnaire (PDQ) and assess the concordance of the admission diagnosis reported by the patient and entered by the clinician.

METHODS

 Eligible patients completed the PDQ assessing patients' understanding of and confidence in the diagnosis 24 hours into hospitalization either independently or with assistance. Demographic data, the hospital principal problem upon admission, and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were retrieved from the electronic health record (EHR). Two physicians independently rated concordance between patient-reported diagnosis and clinician-entered principal problem as full, partial, or no. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographics for concordant (full) and nonconcordant (partial or no) outcome groups. Multivariable logistic regressions of PDQ questions and a priori selected EHR data as independent variables were conducted to predict nonconcordance.

RESULTS

 A total of 157 (77.7%) questionnaires were completed by 202 participants; 77 (49.0%), 46 (29.3%), and 34 (21.7%) were rated fully concordant, partially concordant, and not concordant, respectively. Cohen's kappa for agreement on preconsensus ratings by independent reviewers was 0.81 (0.74, 0.88). In multivariable analyses, patient-reported lack of confidence and undifferentiated symptoms (ICD-10 "R-code") for the principal problem were significantly associated with nonconcordance (partial or no concordance ratings) after adjusting for other PDQ questions (3.43 [1.30, 10.39], p = 0.02) and in a model using selected variables (4.02 [1.80, 9.55], p < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 About one-half of patient-reported diagnoses were concordant with the clinician-entered diagnosis on admission. An ICD-10 "R-code" entered as the principal problem and patient-reported lack of confidence may predict patient-clinician nonconcordance early during hospitalization via this approach.

Improving communication of diagnostic uncertainty to families of hospitalized children

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic uncertainty is not reliably communicated to patients and caregivers. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to effective communication of diagnostic uncertainty, including development of potential tools and strategies for improvement, as perceived by healthcare professionals and caregivers.

METHODS

We completed structured interviews with providers and caregivers of hospitalized children with uncertain diagnoses (UD). The interview guides addressed barriers to communication, key components for communication of uncertainty, and qualities of effective communication. The interviews concluded with respondents prioritizing potential interventions to improve communication of uncertainty. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and independently analyzed by two team members to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Ten provider and five caregiver interviews were conducted. Common barriers to communication of uncertainty included time constraints, language barriers, and lack of clear definition of UD. Caregiver suggestions for improvement included sharing expectations of the diagnostic process and use of both written and visual communication tools. Interview respondents favored interventions of a sign summarizing the key components of diagnostic uncertainty for display in patient rooms and a structured diagnostic pause during daily rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several potential interventions that may enhance communication of diagnostic uncertainty and better engage patients and caregivers in the diagnostic process.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred.

METHODS

Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

How do patients and care partners describe diagnostic uncertainty in an emergency department or urgent care setting?

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about how patients perceive diagnostic uncertainty. We sought to understand how patients and care partners perceive uncertainty in an emergency or urgent care setting, where making a final diagnosis is often not possible.

METHODS

We administered a survey to a nationally representative panel on patient-reported diagnostic excellence in an emergency department or urgent care setting. The survey included items specific to perceived diagnostic excellence, visit characteristics, and demographics. We analyzed responses to two open-ended questions among those who reported uncertainty in the explanation they were given. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, and compared by whether respondents agreed or disagreed the explanation they were given was true.

RESULTS

Of the 1,116 respondents, 106 (10 %) reported that the care team was not certain in the explanation of their health problem. Five themes were identified in the open-ended responses: poor communication (73 %), uncertainty made transparent (10 %), incorrect information provided (9 %), inadequate testing equipment (4 %), and unable to determine (4 %). Of the respondents who reported uncertainty, 21 % (n=22/106) reported the explanation of their problem given was not true.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this analysis suggest that the majority of patients and their care partners do not equate uncertainty with a wrong explanation of their health problem, and that poor communication was the most commonly cited reason for perceived uncertainty.

Calibrating variant curation by clinical context based on factors that influence patients' tolerance of uncertainty

PURPOSE

Shared decision making manages genomic uncertainty by integrating molecular and clinical uncertainties with patient values to craft a person-centered management plan. Laboratories seek genomic report consistency, agnostic to clinical context. Molecular reports often mask laboratory-managed uncertainties from clinical decision making. Better integration of these uncertainty management strategies requires a nuanced understanding of patients' perceptions and reactions to test uncertainties. We explored patients' tolerance to variant uncertainty in 3 parameters: (1) relative causal significance, (2) risk accuracy, and (3) classification validity.

METHOD

Deliberative forums were undertaken with 18 patients with predictive testing experience. Uncertainty deliberations were elicited for each parameter. A thematic framework was first developed, and then mapped to whether they justified tolerance to more or less parameter-specific uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six identified themes mapped to clinical and personal domains. These domains generated opposing forces when calibrating uncertainty. Personal themes justified tolerance of higher uncertainty and clinical themes lower uncertainty. Decision making in uncertainty focused on reducing management regret. Open communication increased tolerance of classification validity and risk accuracy uncertainty. Using these data, we have developed a nascent clinical algorithm integrating molecular uncertainty with clinical context through a targeted communication framework.

CONCLUSION

Maximizing test utility necessitates context-specific recalibration of uncertainty management and communication.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Diagnostic Error in Pediatric Critical Care: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Effective interventions to prevent diagnostic error among critically ill children should be informed by diagnostic error prevalence and etiologies. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic errors and identify factors associated with error in patients admitted to the PICU.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study using structured medical record review by trained clinicians using the Revised Safer Dx instrument to identify diagnostic error (defined as missed opportunities in diagnosis). Cases with potential errors were further reviewed by four pediatric intensivists who made final consensus determinations of diagnostic error occurrence. Demographic, clinical, clinician, and encounter data were also collected.

SETTING

Four academic tertiary-referral PICUs.

PATIENTS

Eight hundred eighty-two randomly selected patients 0-18 years old who were nonelectively admitted to participating PICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 882 patient admissions, 13 (1.5%) had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Infections (46%) and respiratory conditions (23%) were the most common missed diagnoses. One diagnostic error caused harm with a prolonged hospital stay. Common missed diagnostic opportunities included failure to consider the diagnosis despite a suggestive history (69%) and failure to broaden diagnostic testing (69%). Unadjusted analysis identified more diagnostic errors in patients with atypical presentations (23.1% vs 3.6%, p = 0.011), neurologic chief complaints (46.2% vs 18.8%, p = 0.024), admitting intensivists greater than or equal to 45 years old (92.3% vs 65.1%, p = 0.042), admitting intensivists with more service weeks/year (mean 12.8 vs 10.9 wk, p = 0.031), and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (77% vs 25.1%, p < 0.001). Generalized linear mixed models determined that atypical presentation (odds ratio [OR] 4.58; 95% CI, 0.94-17.1) and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (OR 9.67; 95% CI, 2.86-44.0) were significantly associated with diagnostic error.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill children, 1.5% had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Diagnostic errors were associated with atypical presentations and diagnostic uncertainty on admission, suggesting possible targets for intervention.

Understanding diagnostic conversations in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Summarize frameworks to understand diagnostic conversations and assessments of diagnostic conversations in practice.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and other databases from inception to July 2022 for reports of diagnostic conversations. Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed methodological quality with the mixed methods appraisal tool and extracted information related to study characteristics, frameworks and components evaluated in assessments of diagnostic conversations and results.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included. One study reported an empiric framework of diagnostic conversations that included the following components: identifying the problem that requires diagnosis, obtaining information, and delivering the diagnosis and treatment plan. Thematic analyses highlighted communication between patients and clinicians as central in diagnostic conversations as it allows a) patient's presentation of their symptoms which guide subsequent diagnostic steps, b) negotiation of the significance of the patient's symptoms through conversation and c) introducing and resolving diagnostic uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of diagnostic conversation only one empiric framework described its components. Additionally, limited available evidence suggests patients can have an important role in the diagnostic process that expands beyond patients as an information source.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients should be included as active partners in co-development of diagnostic plans of care.

Embracing the Wisdom of Ancient Greece in the Era of Personalized Medicine-Uncertainty, Probabilistic Reasoning, and Democratic Consensus

Further improvements of outcome after solid organ transplantation will depend on our ability to integrate personalized medicine in clinical routine. Not only better risk stratification or improved diagnostics, also targeted therapies and predictive markers of treatment success are needed, as there is a virtual standstill in the development and implementation of novel therapies for prevention and treatment of allograft rejection. The integration of clinical decision support algorithms and novel biomarkers in clinical practice will require a different reasoning, embracing concepts of uncertainty and probabilistic thinking as the ground truth is often unknown and the tools imperfect. This is important for communication between healthcare professionals, but patients and their caregivers also need to be informed and educated about the levels of uncertainty inherent to personalized medicine. In the translation of research findings and personalized medicine to routine clinical care, it remains crucial to maintain global consensus on major aspects of clinical routine, to avoid further divergence between centres and countries in the standard of care. Such consensus can only be reached when experts with divergent opinions are willing to transcend their own convictions, understand that there is not one single truth, and thus are able to embrace a level of uncertainty.

Reasoning on Rounds: a Framework for Teaching Diagnostic Reasoning in the Inpatient Setting

Internal medicine trainees learn a variety of clinical skills from resident clinical teachers in the inpatient setting. While diagnostic reasoning (DR) is increasingly emphasized as a core competency, trainees may not feel entirely comfortable teaching it. In this perspective article, we provide a framework for teaching DR during inpatient rounds, which includes focusing on the one-liner, structuring a reasoning-focused A&P, and performing a day of discharge reflection.

Uncertainty: a neglected determinant of health behavior?

Health behaviors are critical determinants of the well-being of individuals and populations, and understanding the determinants of these behaviors has been a major focus of research. One important determinant that has received little direct attention in past health research is uncertainty: a complex phenomenon that pertains not only to scientific issues regarding the diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment of health problems, but also to personal issues regarding other important health-related concerns. Here, we make the case for greater attention to uncertainty in health behavior theory and research, and especially to personal uncertainties. We discuss three exemplary types of personal uncertainty-value uncertainty, capacity uncertainty, and motive uncertainty-which relate, respectively, to moral values, capacities to enact or change behaviors, and the motives and intentions of other persons or institutions. We argue that that personal uncertainties such as these influence health behaviors, but their influence has historically been obscured by a focus on other constructs such as self-efficacy and trust. Reconceptualizing and investigating health behavior as a problem of uncertainty can advance both our understanding of the determinants of healthy behaviors and our ability to promote them.

The memory clinic and psychosocial intervention: Translating past promise into current practices

Disproportionate negative effects since the pandemic have amplified the already limited post-diagnostic support for older people with dementia. This paper summarizes an exploratory randomized controlled study of a proactive family-based intervention compared with "usual" post-diagnostic dementia care. Memory clinic practitioners collaborated with the family doctor (GP) to coordinate this. At 12-month follow-up, positive effects on mood, behavior, carer coping and maintenance of care at home were found. Current approaches to deliver post-diagnostic support in primary care may require rethinking since (i) GP workloads have increased with low numbers of GPs per head of population in parts of England; and (ii) unlike many other long-term conditions, ongoing stigma, fear and uncertainty associated with dementia adds to the huge complexity of timely care provision. There is a case for return to a "one-stop facility", with a single pathway of continuing multidisciplinary coordinated care for older people with dementia and families. Future longitudinal research could compare structured post-diagnostic psychosocial intervention coordinated by skilled practitioners in a single locality memory service "hub", against other approaches such support organized mostly within primary care. Dementia-specific instruments for outcome measurement are available for use in routine practice, and should be included in such comparative studies.

Imposter Syndrome Among Surgeons Is Associated With Intolerance of Uncertainty and Lower Confidence in Problem Solving

BACKGROUND

Feelings of imposter syndrome (inadequacy or incompetence) are common among physicians and are associated with diminished joy in practice. Identification of modifiable factors associated with feelings of imposter syndrome might inform strategies to ameliorate them. To this point, though, no such factors have been identified.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Are intolerance of uncertainty and confidence in problem-solving skills independently associated with feelings of imposter syndrome after accounting for other factors?

METHODS

This survey-based experiment measured the relationship between feelings of imposter syndrome, intolerance of uncertainty, and confidence in problem-solving skills among musculoskeletal specialist surgeons. Approximately 200 surgeons who actively participate in the Science of Variation Group, a collaboration of mainly orthopaedic surgeons specializing in upper extremity illnesses primarily across Europe and North America, were invited to this survey-based experiment. One hundred two surgeons completed questionnaires measuring feelings of imposter syndrome (an adaptation of the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale), tolerance of uncertainty (the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12), and confidence in problem-solving skills (the Personal Optimism and Self-Efficacy Optimism questionnaire), as well as basic demographics. The participants were characteristic of other Science of Variation Group experiments: the mean age was 52 ± 5 years, with 89% (91 of 102) being men, most self-reported White race (81% [83 of 102]), largely subspecializing in hand and/or wrist surgery (73% [74 of 102]), and with just over half of the group (54% [55 of 102]) having greater than 11 years of experience. We sought to identify factors associated with greater feelings of imposter syndrome in a multivariable statistical model.

RESULTS

Accounting for potential confounding factors such as years of experience or supervision of trainees in the multivariable linear regression analysis, greater feelings of imposter syndrome were modestly associated with higher intolerance of uncertainty (regression coefficient [β] 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.51]; p < 0.01) and with lower confidence in problem-solving skills (β -0.70 [95% CI -1.0 to -0.35]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The finding that feelings of imposter syndrome may be modestly to notably associated with modifiable factors, such as difficulty managing uncertainty and lack of confidence in problem-solving, spark coaching opportunities to support and sustain a surgeon's mindset, which may lead to increased comfort and joy at work.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Beginning with premedical coursework and throughout medical training and continuing medical education, future studies can address the impact of learning and practicing tactics that increase comfort with uncertainty and greater confidence in problem solving on limiting feelings of imposter syndrome.

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions to coproduce diagnostic safety through OurDX: a previsit online engagement tool

OBJECTIVE

Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ("OurDX") that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note.

METHODS

Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings.

RESULTS

Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories.

CONCLUSIONS

OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note.

Developing a machine learning model to detect diagnostic uncertainty in clinical documentation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic uncertainty, when unrecognized or poorly communicated, can result in diagnostic error. However, diagnostic uncertainty is challenging to study due to a lack of validated identification methods. This study aims to identify distinct linguistic patterns associated with diagnostic uncertainty in clinical documentation.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This case-control study compares the clinical documentation of hospitalized children who received a novel uncertain diagnosis (UD) diagnosis label during their admission to a set of matched controls. Linguistic analyses identified potential linguistic indicators (i.e., words or phrases) of diagnostic uncertainty that were then manually reviewed by a linguist and clinical experts to identify those most relevant to diagnostic uncertainty. A natural language processing program categorized medical terminology into semantic types (i.e., sign or symptom), from which we identified a subset of these semantic types that both categorized reliably and were relevant to diagnostic uncertainty. Finally, a competitive machine learning modeling strategy utilizing the linguistic indicators and semantic types compared different predictive models for identifying diagnostic uncertainty.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 242 UD-labeled patients and 932 matched controls with a combination of 3070 clinical notes. The best-performing model was a random forest, utilizing a combination of linguistic indicators and semantic types, yielding a sensitivity of 89.4% and a positive predictive value of 96.7%.

CONCLUSION

Expert labeling, natural language processing, and machine learning methods combined with human validation resulted in highly predictive models to detect diagnostic uncertainty in clinical documentation and represent a promising approach to detecting, studying, and ultimately mitigating diagnostic uncertainty in clinical practice.

Developing a Framework and Electronic Tool for Communicating Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study

IMPORTANCE

Communication of information has emerged as a critical component of diagnostic quality. Communication of diagnostic uncertainty represents a key but inadequately examined element of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify key elements facilitating understanding and managing diagnostic uncertainty, examine optimal ways to convey uncertainty to patients, and develop and test a novel tool to communicate diagnostic uncertainty in actual clinical encounters.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 5-stage qualitative study was performed between July 2018 and April 2020, at an academic primary care clinic in Boston, Massachusetts, with a convenience sample of 24 primary care physicians (PCPs), 40 patients, and 5 informatics and quality/safety experts. First, a literature review and panel discussion with PCPs were conducted and 4 clinical vignettes of typical diagnostic uncertainty scenarios were developed. Second, these scenarios were tested during think-aloud simulated encounters with expert PCPs to iteratively draft a patient leaflet and a clinician guide. Third, the leaflet content was evaluated with 3 patient focus groups. Fourth, additional feedback was obtained from PCPs and informatics experts to iteratively redesign the leaflet content and workflow. Fifth, the refined leaflet was integrated into an electronic health record voice-enabled dictation template that was tested by 2 PCPs during 15 patient encounters for new diagnostic problems. Data were thematically analyzed using qualitative analysis software.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Perceptions and testing of content, feasibility, usability, and satisfaction with a prototype tool for communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 participants were interviewed. A clinician guide and a diagnostic uncertainty communication tool were developed based on the PCP interviews and patient feedback. The optimal tool requirements included 6 key domains: most likely diagnosis, follow-up plan, test limitations, expected improvement, contact information, and space for patient input. Patient feedback on the leaflet was iteratively incorporated into 4 successive versions, culminating in a successfully piloted prototype tool as an end-of-visit voice recognition dictation template with high levels of patient satisfaction for 15 patients with whom the tool was tested.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, a diagnostic uncertainty communication tool was successfully designed and implemented during clinical encounters. The tool demonstrated good workflow integration and patient satisfaction.

Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care and Its Impact on Patient Experience: an Integrative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is a pervasive issue in primary care where patients often present with non-specific symptoms early in the disease process. Knowledge about how clinicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty to patients is crucial to prevent associated diagnostic errors. Yet, in-depth research on the interpersonal communication of diagnostic uncertainty has been limited. We conducted an integrative systematic literature review (PROSPERO CRD42020197624, unfunded) to investigate how primary care doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty in interactions with patients and how patients experience their care in the face of uncertainty.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA) from inception to December 2021 for MeSH and keywords related to 'communication', 'diagnosis', 'uncertainty' and 'primary care' environments and stakeholders (patients and doctors), and conducted additional handsearching. We included empirical primary care studies published in English on spoken communication of diagnostic uncertainty by doctors to patients. We assessed risk of bias with the QATSDD quality assessment tool and conducted thematic and content analysis to synthesise the results.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met for 19 out of 1281 studies. Doctors used two main communication strategies to manage diagnostic uncertainty: (1) patient-centred communication strategies (e.g. use of empathy), and (2) diagnostic reasoning strategies (e.g. excluding serious diagnoses). Linguistically, diagnostic uncertainty was either disclosed explicitly or implicitly through diverse lexical and syntactical constructions, or not communicated (omission). Patients' experiences of care in response to the diverse communicative and linguistic strategies were mixed. Patient-centred approaches were generally regarded positively by patients.

DISCUSSION

Despite a small number of included studies, this is the first review to systematically catalogue the diverse communication and linguistic strategies to express diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Health professionals should be aware of the diverse strategies used to express diagnostic uncertainty in practice and the value of combining patient-centred approaches with diagnostic reasoning strategies.

Survey of Inpatient Consultations with General Internal Medicine Physicians in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

The general internal medicine (GIM) department can be an effective diagnostic coordinator for undiagnosed outpatients. We investigated the contribution of GIM consultations to the diagnosis of patients admitted to specialty departments in hospitals in Japan that have not yet adopted a hospitalist system.

Patients and Methods

This single-center, retrospective observational study was conducted at a university hospital in Japan. GIM consultations from other departments on inpatients aged ≥20 years, from April 2016 to March 2021, were included. Data were extracted from electronic medical records, and consultation purposes were categorized into diagnosis, treatment, and diagnosis and treatment. The primary outcome was new diagnosis during hospitalization for patients with consultation purpose of diagnosis or diagnosis and treatment. The secondary outcomes were the purposes of consultation with the Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine department.

Results

In total, 342 patients were included in the analysis. The purpose of the consultations was diagnosis for 253 patients (74%), treatment for 60 (17.5%), and diagnosis and treatment for 29 patients (8.5%). In 282 consultations for diagnosis and diagnosis and treatment, 179 new diagnoses were established for 162 patients (57.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 51.5-63.3).

Conclusion

The GIM department can function as a diagnostic consultant for inpatients with diagnostic problems admitted to other specialty departments in hospitals where hospitalist or other similar systems are not adopted.

A clinician’s dilemma: what should be communicated to women with oncogenic genital HPV and their partners regarding the risk of oral viral transmission?

Head and neck cancer, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, account for about 1 out of 20 malignant tumors. In recent years a reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer, but a concomitant major increase in the incidence of HPV-mediated oropharyngeal cancer caused by orogenital HPV transmission has been observed. Consequently, in wealthy countries oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinomas (OPSCC) is now the most frequent HPV-related cancer, having overtaken cervical cancer. Without effective medical interventions, this incidence trend could continue for decades. As no specific precursor lesion has been consistently identified in the oral cavity and oropharynx, HPV vaccination is the logical intervention to successfully counteract also the rising incidence of OPSCCs. However, HPV vaccine uptake remains suboptimal, particularly in males, the population at higher risk of OPSCC. Alternative primary prevention measures, such as modifications in sexual behaviors, could be implemented based on knowledge of individual genital HPV status. Until recently, this information was not available at a population level, but the current gradual shift from cytology (Pap test) to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is revealing the presence of oncogenic viral genotypes in millions of women. In the past, health authorities and professional organizations have not consistently recommended modifications in sexual behaviors to be adopted when a persistent high-risk HPV cervicovaginal infection was identified. However, given the above changing epidemiologic scenario and the recent availability of an immense amount of novel information on genital HPV infection, it is unclear whether patient counseling should change. The right of future partners to be informed of the risk could also be considered. However, any modification of the provided counseling should be based also on the actual likelihood of a beneficial effect on the incidence of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers. The risk is on one side to induce unjustified anxiety and provide ineffective instructions, on the other side to miss the opportunity to limit the spread of oral HPV infections. Thus, major health authorities and international gynecologic scientific societies should issue or update specific recommendations, also with the aim of preventing inconsistent health care professionals’ behaviors.

When feelings hurt: Learning how to talk with families about the role of emotions in physical symptoms

Emotions are at the core of all human experiences, but talking about emotions is challenging, particularly in the context of medical encounters focused on somatic symptoms. Transparent, normalizing, and validating communication about the mind-body connection opens the door for respectful, open dialogue between the family and members of the care team, acknowledging the lived experience that is brought to the table in understanding the problem and co-creating a solution.