Patient centred diagnosis: sharing diagnostic decisions with patients in clinical practice

Improving Appropriate Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Through a Statewide Collaborative Hospital Initiative: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) programs require significant financial investment. The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a physician-led, performance-incentivized, QI intervention that increased appropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use.

METHODS

The authors used an economic evaluation from a health care sector perspective. Implementation costs included incentive payments to hospitals and costs for data abstractors and the coordinating center. Effectiveness was calculated from propensity score-matched observations across two time periods for complications (venous thromboembolism [VTE], central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], and catheter occlusion): preintervention period (January 2015 through December 2016) and intervention period (January 2017 through December 2021). Cost-effectiveness was presented as the cost-offset per averted complication, reflecting the health care costs avoided due to having lower complication rates.

RESULTS

Across 35 hospitals, this study sampled 17,418 PICCs placed preintervention and 26,004 placed during the intervention period. PICC complications decreased significantly following the intervention. CLABSIs decreased from 2.1% to 1.5%, VTEs from 3.2% to 2.3%, and catheter occlusions from 10.8% to 7.0% (all p < 0.01). Estimated number of complications prevented included 871 CLABSIs, 2,535 VTEs, and 8,743 catheter occlusions. Project implementation costs were $31.8 million, and the cost-offset related to avoided complications was $64.4 million. Each participating hospital averaged $932,073 in cost-offset over seven years, and the average cost-offset per complication averted was $2,614 (95% CI [confidence interval] $2,314-$3,003).

CONCLUSION

A large-scale, multihospital QI initiative to improve appropriate PICC use yielded substantial return on investment from cost-offset of prevented complications.

The expectations and experiences of patients regarding the diagnostic workup at a specialized memory clinic: An interview study

BACKGROUND

Because of the shift towards earlier diagnosis of dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease (AD), increasing numbers of individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are seen in memory clinics. Yet, evidence indicates that there is room for improvement when it comes to tailoring of the diagnostic work-up to the needs of individual patients. To optimize the quality of care, we explored patients' perspectives regarding the diagnostic work-up at a specialized memory clinic.

METHODS

This interview study was conducted at Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden). The comprehensive diagnostic work-up for dementia at the memory clinic in Solna is conducted within 1 week. A sample of 15 patients (8 female; mean age = 61 years [range 50-72]; 11 SCD, 1 MCI and 3 AD dementia) was purposively selected for a series of three semistructured interviews, focussing on (1) needs and expectations (during the week of diagnostic testing), (2) experiences (within 2 weeks after test-result disclosure) and (3) reflections and evaluation (3 months after disclosure). Transcribed audio-recorded data were analyzed using thematic content analysis (using MaxQDA software).

RESULTS

Three key themes were identified: (1) the expectations and motivations of individuals for visiting the memory clinic strongly impacted their experience; (2) the diagnostic work-up impacted individuals psychosocially and (3) the diagnostic work-up provided an opportunity to motivate individuals to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the importance of enquiring about the expectations and needs of individuals referred to a specialized memory clinic, allowing for expectation management and personalization of provided information/advice, and potentially informing the selection of patients in need of a comprehensive diagnostic work-up. Structural guidance might be needed to support those with SCD and MCI to help them cope with uncertainty, potentially resolve their issues, and/or stimulate brain health.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We gathered the perspectives of 15 individuals who had been referred to the memory clinic at three different time points through semistructured interviews, and these interviews were the primary data source.

Clinician feedback using a shared decision-making tool for the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules-an observational study

BACKGROUND

We pilot-tested an encounter conversation aid to support shared decision making (SDM) between patients with thyroid nodules and their clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize the clinician feedback after providing care to patients with thyroid nodules using a tool to promote SDM conversations during the clinical encounter, and evaluate how clinicians used the tool during the visit.

METHODS

Mixed method study in two academic centers in the U.S., including adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules and their clinicians. We thematically analyzed interviews with clinicians after they used the SDM tool in at least three visits to characterize their feedback. Additionally, investigators evaluated visits recordings to determine the extent to which clinicians engaged patients in the decision-making process (OPTION score, scale 0 to 100, higher levels indicating higher involvement), the tool's components used (fidelity), and encounter duration. Using a post-visit survey, we evaluated the extent to which clinicians felt the tool was easy to use, helpful, and supportive of the patient-clinician collaboration.

RESULTS

Thirteen clinicians participated in the study and used the SDM tool in the care of 53 patients. Clinicians thought the tool was well-organized and beneficial to patients and clinicians. Clinicians noticed a change in their routine with the use of the conversation aid and suggested it needed to be more flexible to better support varying conversations. The median OPTION score was 34, the fidelity of use 75%, and the median visit duration 17 min. In most encounters, clinicians agreed or strongly agreed the tool was easy to use (86%), helpful (65%), and supported collaboration (62%).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians were able to use a SDM tool in the care of patients with thyroid nodules. Although they wished it were more flexible, they found on the whole that its use in the clinical encounter was beneficial to patients and clinicians.

Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care

OBJECTIVES

In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients' and care partners' perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy.

METHODS

In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively.

RESULTS

A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients' subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor's opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team's attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy.

IMPLICATIONS

As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice.

HIGHLIGHTS

An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care.In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have.We introduce "patient reasoning" in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health.

Communicating uncertainty in pathology reports: a descriptive study from a specialized cancer center

Pathologists use certain terminologies to communicate uncertainty in pathology reports. The message conveyed in pathology reports may be interpreted differently by clinicians leading to possible miscommunication. We aimed to compare the interpretation and impact of uncertainty phrases between pathologists and clinicians. A survey with examples of uncertain diagnoses containing ("suspicious for", "indefinite for", "favor", "cannot exclude", "suggestive of", "compatible with", "cannot rule out", "highly suspicious for" and "consistent with") was sent to pathologists and clinicians. For each diagnosis, participants assigned a level of certainty from 1 to 10 and were asked whether they would recommend treatment based on such phraseology. Thirty-six responses (from 7 pathologists, 10 surgeons, 8 pediatric oncologists, 8 medical oncologists, 2 radiation oncologists and 1 diagnostic radiologist) were received. Pathologists had a narrower range of uncertainty compared to clinicians. Wide variation between both groups was seen for all phrases except "compatible with" and "highly suspicious for". 'Indefinite for' showed the lowest mean of certainty (4.67 for pathologists; 4.00 for clinicians) whereas 'consistent with' had the highest (8.83 for pathologists and 9.38 for clinicians). There was a significant difference in the degree of certainty between both groups for "compatible with" (7.83 for pathologists and 9.06 for clinicians, p = .009). For treatment decisions, pathologists and clinicians agreed on initiating treatment when "consistent with" and "compatible with" were used and gave variable responses for the other terms. They proposed opposing treatment recommendations for "favor". Pathologists and clinicians varied in interpretation of uncertainty phrases which may impact treatment.

Patient experiences of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain and their views on diagnostic shoulder imaging: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

To explore patient experiences of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, and their views on the role and value of diagnostic shoulder imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients with shoulder pain exploring the impact and management of their shoulder condition, reasons for and experiences of diagnostic imaging, and feelings about and responses to diagnostic imaging findings. Framework analysis was used to analyse the dataset.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified [1]: Lived experience and beliefs about pain and movement [2]; Contextualisation of imaging findings by health professionals is more important than the imaging report [3]; Factors influencing whether and when to have imaging [4]; Imaging can identify the actual problem and guide treatment; and [5] Treatment responses and treatment decision making.

CONCLUSION

Patients commonly believe imaging is needed to formulate a diagnosis. There was minimal concern about potential indirect harms that could arise (e.g., inappropriate diagnosis leading to unnecessary treatments). The context of the diagnostic imaging reports (i.e., what needed to be done) was perceived as more important than the exact meaning of the imaging findings. Patients felt that the diagnostic imaging confirmed their existing biomedical beliefs, and these beliefs were not challenged by their healthcare professionals.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPatients with shoulder pain may believe imaging is necessary for diagnosis and defining treatment yet do not consider potential indirect harms (e.g., unnecessary treatment for findings that are not relevant).Health professionals should ensure patients are aware of imaging limitations and harms and facilitate shared decision-making about whether to have imaging.Health professionals also have an important role in the appropriate contextualisation of imaging findings (i.e., they do not necessarily relate to pain nor guide treatment).

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.

Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey

BACKGROUND

Language barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse.

METHOD

We compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses.

RESULTS

596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient's) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

Partnering with Patients and Families to Improve Diagnostic Safety through the OurDX Tool: Effects of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Preference

BACKGROUND

Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note.

RESULTS

Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or "other" race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference.

CONCLUSION

Participants self-identifying as Black or "other" race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities.

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.

"It's probably an STI because you're gay": a qualitative study of diagnostic error experiences in sexual and gender minority individuals

BACKGROUND

There is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations.

PURPOSE

To identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions.

METHODS

Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes.

Guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department 3 (GRACE-3): Acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department

This third Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-3) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic adult patients with acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department (ED). A multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding five questions for adult ED patients with acute dizziness of less than 2 weeks' duration. The intended population is adults presenting to the ED with acute dizziness or vertigo. The panel derived 15 evidence-based recommendations based on the timing and triggers of the dizziness but recognizes that alternative diagnostic approaches exist, such as the STANDING protocol and nystagmus examination in combination with gait unsteadiness or the presence of vascular risk factors. As an overarching recommendation, (1) emergency clinicians should receive training in bedside physical examination techniques for patients with the acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; HINTS) and the diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV; Dix-Hallpike test and Epley maneuver). To help distinguish central from peripheral causes in patients with the AVS, we recommend: (2) use HINTS (for clinicians trained in its use) in patients with nystagmus, (3) use finger rub to further aid in excluding stroke in patients with nystagmus, (4) use severity of gait unsteadiness in patients without nystagmus, (5) do not use brain computed tomography (CT), (6) do not use routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a first-line test if a clinician trained in HINTS is available, and (7) use MRI as a confirmatory test in patients with central or equivocal HINTS examinations. In patients with the spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome: (8) search for symptoms or signs of cerebral ischemia, (9) do not use CT, and (10) use CT angiography or MRI angiography if there is concern for transient ischemic attack. In patients with the triggered (positional) episodic vestibular syndrome, (11) use the Dix-Hallpike test to diagnose posterior canal BPPV (pc-BPPV), (12) do not use CT, and (13) do not use MRI routinely, unless atypical clinical features are present. In patients diagnosed with vestibular neuritis, (14) consider short-term steroids as a treatment option. In patients diagnosed with pc-BPPV, (15) treat with the Epley maneuver. It is clear that as of 2023, when applied in routine practice by emergency clinicians without special training, HINTS testing is inaccurate, partly due to use in the wrong patients and partly due to issues with its interpretation. Most emergency physicians have not received training in use of HINTS. As such, it is not standard of care, either in the legal sense of that term ("what the average physician would do in similar circumstances") or in the common parlance sense ("the standard action typically used by physicians in routine practice").

Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study

PURPOSE

To characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance).

METHODS

Investigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients' expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%).

CONCLUSION

User centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians.

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.

Fostering uncertainty tolerance in anatomy education: Lessons learned from how humanities, arts and social science (HASS) educators develop learners' uncertainty tolerance

Uncertainty tolerance, individuals' perceptions/responses to uncertain stimuli, is increasingly recognized as critical to effective healthcare practice. While the Covid-19 pandemic generated collective uncertainty, healthcare-related uncertainty is omnipresent. Correspondingly, there is increasing focus on uncertainty tolerance as a health professional graduate "competency," and a concomitant interest in identifying pedagogy fostering learners' uncertainty tolerance. Despite these calls, practical guidelines for educators are lacking. There is some initial evidence that anatomy education can foster medical students' uncertainty tolerance (e.g., anatomical variation and dissection novelty), however, there remains a knowledge gap regarding robust curriculum-wide uncertainty tolerance teaching strategies. Drawing upon humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) educators' established uncertainty tolerance pedagogies, this study sought to learn from HASS academics' experiences with, and teaching practices related to, uncertainty pedagogy using a qualitative, exploratory study design. Framework analysis was undertaken using an abductive approach, wherein researchers oscillate between inductive and deductive coding (comparing to the uncertainty tolerance conceptual model). During this analysis, the authors analyzed ~386 min of data from purposively sampled HASS academics' (n = 14) discussions to address the following research questions: (1) What teaching practices do HASS academics' perceive as impacting learners' uncertainty tolerance, and (2) How do HASS academics execute these teaching practices? The results extend current understanding of the moderating effects of education on uncertainty tolerance and supports prior findings that the anatomy learning environment is ripe for supporting learner uncertainty tolerance development. This study adds to growing literature on the powerful moderating effect education has on uncertainty tolerance and proposes translation of HASS uncertainty tolerance teaching practices to enhance anatomy education.

Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making implies that patients and healthcare professionals make decisions together about clinical exams, available treatments, choice of options, and the benefit or downside of every choice. Patients involved in the shared decision-making process are more compliant with treatments and have a reduced risk of complications related to the pathology. In Italy, patient involvement in caring processes is still barely investigated.

AIM

To investigate patients' perceptions about shared decision-making with physicians and nurses, respectively, and to examine the relationship between shared decision-making and patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care/treatment.

METHODS

The study was performed between March and June 2019 in two wards of one Italian hospital. A questionnaire was administered to inpatients at the time of admission and again at discharge, including demographic information and measurement scales regarding patient involvement in shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, and perceived quality of treatment/care.

RESULTS

A total of 151 out of 301 patients completed questionnaires at both admission and discharge. Patients' scores for shared decision-making (information, patient needs, treatment planning) were significantly different for physicians and nurses. At both admission and discharge, patients rated shared decision-making significantly higher for physicians compared to nurses, while there were no differences in their satisfaction ratings. Patient ratings of physicians did not change from admission (information: mean (M) = 3.50, standard deviation (SD) = 0.81; patient need: M = 3.05, SD = 1.05; treatment planning: M = 2.75, SD = 1.23) to discharge (information: M = 3.50, SD = 0.79; patient need: M = 3.17, SD = 1.02; treatment planning: M = 2.66, SD = 1.23) (p = 0.924, p = 0.098, p = 0.293, respectively), but patients' ratings of nurses' behavior increased significantly from admission (information: M = 2.44, SD = 1.23; patient need: M = 2.27, SD = 1.17; treatment planning: M = 2.12, SD = 1.19) to discharge (information: M = 2.62, SD = 1.22; patient need: M = 2.53, SD = 1.24; treatment planning: M = 2.35, SD = 1.21) (p = 0.019, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). Attention to patients' needs was the key determinant of both satisfaction with nurses (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 1.31-10.14, p = 0.013) and perceived quality of care (OR = 3.97, 95% CI = 1.49-10.55, p = 0.006). Providing appropriate information about disease progress and treatments was a key determinant of both satisfaction with physicians (OR = 19.75, 95% CI = 7.29-53.55, p < 0.001) and perceived quality of treatment (OR = 8.03, 95% CI = 3.25-19.81, p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Nurses should be sensitized to involving patients in the decision-making process, especially upon hospital admission. Specific training about effective communication techniques can be implemented to manage relationships with patients in different caring situations. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.

How do electronic risk assessment tools affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty in the primary care consultation? A systematic review and thematic synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and synthesise qualitative research of electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) in primary care, examining how they affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic risk and uncertainty. eRATs are computer-based algorithms designed to help clinicians avoid missing important diagnoses, pick up possible symptoms early and facilitate shared decision-making.

DESIGN

Systematic search, using predefined criteria of the published literature and synthesis of the qualitative data, using Thematic Synthesis. Database searches on 27 November 2019 were of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, and a secondary search of the references of included articles. Included studies were those involving electronic risk assessment or decision support, pertaining to diagnosis in primary care, where qualitative data were presented. Non-empirical studies and non-English language studies were excluded. 5971 unique studies were identified of which 441 underwent full-text review. 26 studies were included for data extraction. A further two were found from citation searches. Quality appraisal was via the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool. Data extraction was via line by line coding. A thematic synthesis was performed.

SETTING

Primary care.

RESULTS

eRATs included differential diagnosis suggestion tools, tools which produce a future risk of disease development or recurrence or calculate a risk of current undiagnosed disease. Analytical themes were developed to describe separate aspects of the clinical consultation where risk and uncertainty are both central and altered via the use of an eRAT: 'Novel risk', 'Risk refinement', 'Autonomy', 'Communication', 'Fear' and 'Mistrust'.

CONCLUSION

eRATs may improve the understanding and communication of risk in the primary care consultation. The themes of 'Fear' and 'Mistrust' could represent potential challenges with eRATs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD219446.

Inviting patients to identify diagnostic concerns through structured evaluation of their online visit notes

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review.

OBJECTIVE

To test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes.

METHODS

In a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables.

RESULTS

Of 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.

Patient beliefs and perceptions play a crucial role in the decision-making process when managing a meniscal tear. A qualitative systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in research on the effectiveness of treatment options for the management of meniscal tears. However, there is very little evidence about the patient experiences of meniscal tears.

AIM

To summarise the available qualitative evidence on patients' experiences and expectations of meniscal tears.

METHOD

A search of EMBASE, Medline, Sociofile and Web of Science up to November 2020 was performed to identify studies reporting patient experiences of meniscal tears. Studies were critically appraised using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) checklist, and a meta-synthesis was performed to generate third-order constructs (new themes).

RESULTS

Two studies reporting semi-structured interviews from 34 participants (24 male; 10 female) were included. The mean interview length ranged from 16 to 45 min. Five themes were generated: (1) the imaging (MRI) results are a key driver in the decision-making process, (2) surgery is perceived to be the definitive and quicker approach, (3) physiotherapy and exercise is a slower approach which brought success over time, (4) patient perceptions and preferences are important in the clinical decision-making process and, (5) the impact on patient lives is a huge driver in seeking care and treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to summarise the qualitative evidence on patient experiences with meniscal tears. The themes generated demonstrate the importance of patient perceptions of MRI findings and timing of treatment success as important factors in the decision-making process. This study demonstrates the need to strengthen our understanding of patients' experiences of meniscal tears.

Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules

OBJECTIVE

To support patient-centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.

DESIGN, PATIENT AND MEASUREMENTS

We developed a web-based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human-centred design. A proof of concept observational pre-post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post-encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision-making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

Crossing Academic Boundaries for Diagnostic Safety: 10 Complex Challenges and Potential Solutions From Clinical Perspectives and High-Reliability Organizing Principles

OBJECTIVE

We apply the high-reliability organization (HRO) paradigm to the diagnostic process, outlining challenges to enacting HRO principles in diagnosis and offering solutions for how diagnostic process stakeholders can overcome these barriers.

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that healthcare is starting to organize for higher reliability by employing various principles and practices of HRO. These hold promise for enhancing safer care, but there has been little consideration of the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face while enacting HRO principles in the diagnostic process. To effectively deploy the HRO perspective, these barriers must be seriously considered.

METHOD

We review key principles of the HRO paradigm, the diagnostic errors and harms that potentially can be prevented by its enactment, the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face in executing various principles and practices, and possible solutions that clinicians and organizational leaders can take to overcome these challenges and barriers.

RESULTS

Our analyses reveal multiple challenges including the inherent diagnostic uncertainty; the lack of diagnosis-focused performance feedback; the fact that diagnosis is often a solo, rather than team, activity; the tendency to simplify the diagnostic process; and professional and institutional status hierarchies. But these challenges are not insurmountable-there are strategies and solutions available to overcome them.

CONCLUSION

The HRO lens offers some important ideas for how the safety of the diagnostic process can be improved.

APPLICATION

The ideas proposed here can be enacted by both individual clinicians and healthcare leaders; both are necessary for making systematic progress in enhancing diagnostic performance.

A Research Agenda for Diagnostic Excellence in Critical Care Medicine

Diagnosing critically ill patients in the intensive care unit is difficult. As a result, diagnostic errors in the intensive care unit are common and have been shown to cause harm. Research to improve diagnosis in critical care medicine has accelerated in past years. However, much work remains to fully elucidate the diagnostic process in critical care. To achieve diagnostic excellence, interdisciplinary research is needed, adopting a balanced strategy of continued biomedical discovery while addressing the complex care delivery systems underpinning the diagnosis of critical illness.

Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Patients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician's view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning.

METHOD

A multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet's AC1 and Cohen's kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61-0.8=good agreement and 0.81-1.00=excellent agreement.

RESULTS

The framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.

Dementia risk communication. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 3 of 6

Growing evidence suggests dementia incidence can be reduced through prevention programs targeting risk factors. To accelerate the implementation of such prevention programs, a new generation of brain health services (BHS) is envisioned, involving risk profiling, risk communication, risk reduction, and cognitive enhancement. The purpose of risk communication is to enable individuals at risk to make informed decisions and take action to protect themselves and is thus a crucial step in tailored prevention strategies of the dementia incidence. However, communicating about dementia risk is complex and challenging.In this paper, we provide an overview of (i) perspectives on communicating dementia risk from an ethical, clinical, and societal viewpoint; (ii) insights gained from memory clinical practice; (iii) available evidence on the impact of disclosing APOE and Alzheimer's disease biomarker test results gathered from clinical trials and observational studies; (iv) the value of established registries in light of BHS; and (v) practical recommendations regarding effective strategies for communicating about dementia risk.In addition, we identify challenges, i.e., the current lack of evidence on what to tell on an individual level-the actual risk-and on how to optimally communicate about dementia risk, especially concerning worried yet cognitively unimpaired individuals. Ideally, dementia risk communication strategies should maximize the desired impact of risk information on individuals' understanding of their health/disease status and risk perception and minimize potential harms. More research is thus warranted on the impact of dementia risk communication, to (1) evaluate the merits of different approaches to risk communication on outcomes in the cognitive, affective and behavioral domains, (2) develop an evidence-based, harmonized dementia risk communication protocol, and (3) develop e-tools to support and promote adherence to this protocol in BHSs.Based on the research reviewed, we recommend that dementia risk communication should be precise; include the use of absolute risks, visual displays, and time frames; based on a process of shared decision-making; and address the inherent uncertainty that comes with any probability.

Implementation of a diagnostic decision aid for people with memory complaints and their general practitioners: a protocol of a before and after pilot trial

INTRODUCTION

Researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals often stress the importance of an early dementia diagnosis. Empirical evidence, however, is scarce leading to a lack of consensus on the necessity of diagnosing dementia early. We emphasise the need for a 'timely' diagnosis, that is, one that occurs at the right moment for a person with memory complaints and his/her significant other. As the optimal timing differs between individuals, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM), preferably by the general practitioner (GP), as the start of a diagnostic trajectory, could help to determine this timely moment. SDM, however, is rarely practised with respect to dementia diagnoses. Therefore, in the context of the Shared Decision-Making regarding Dementia Diagnosis project, a patient decision aid (PtDA) for 'timely' dementia diagnosis in general practice will be developed. This protocol will describe the planned before and after evaluation of its implementation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a mixed-methods pilot study, we will investigate decision-making processes and experiences regarding a diagnostic trajectory before and after the introduction of a PtDA for people with memory complaints, their significant others and their GPs. The 'before group' will receive diagnostics as usual from their GPs. The 'after group' will use the PtDA. We expect the PtDA to increase the level of SDM and to contribute to a timely and personalised diagnostic trajectory. Data will be collected using semistructured interviews, questionnaires and information retrieved from people with memory complaints' medical records.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol was approved by the Medical Review Ethics Committee of the Maastricht University Medical Centre. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and presented at conferences. This study was funded by the public funded Dutch Research Institute for Care and Medical Sciences (ZonMw).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04531956.

Feasibility of patient-reported diagnostic errors following emergency department discharge: a pilot study

OBJECTIVES

The National Academy of Medicine identified diagnostic error as a pressing public health concern and defined failure to effectively communicate the diagnosis to patients as a diagnostic error. Leveraging Patient's Experience to improve Diagnosis (LEAPED) is a new program for measuring patient-reported diagnostic error. As a first step, we sought to assess the feasibility of using LEAPED after emergency department (ED) discharge.

METHODS

We deployed LEAPED using a cohort design at three EDs within one academic health system. We enrolled 59 patients after ED discharge and queried them about their health status and understanding of the explanation for their health problems at 2-weeks, 1-month, and 3-months. We measured response rates and demographic/clinical predictors of patient uptake of LEAPED.

RESULTS

Of those enrolled (n=59), 90% (n=53) responded to the 2-week post-ED discharge questionnaire (1 and 3-month ongoing). Of the six non-responders, one died and three were hospitalized at two weeks. The average age was 50 years (SD 16) and 64% were female; 53% were white and 41% were black. Over a fifth (23%) reported they were not given an explanation of their health problem on leaving the ED, and of those, a fourth (25%) did not have an understanding of what next steps to take after leaving the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient uptake of LEAPED was high, suggesting that patient-report may be a feasible method of evaluating the effectiveness of diagnostic communication to patients though further testing in a broader patient population is essential. Future research should determine if LEAPED yields important insights into the quality and safety of diagnostic care.

Thyroid Nodule Evaluation and Management in Older Adults: A Review of Practical Considerations for Clinical Endocrinologists

OBJECTIVE

Contextualizing the evaluation of older adults with thyroid nodules is necessary to fully understand which management strategy is the most appropriate. Our goal was to summarize available clinical evidence to provide guidance in the care of older adults with thyroid nodules and highlight special considerations for thyroid nodule evaluation and management in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE from January 2000 to November 2020 to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English. References from the included articles as well as articles identified by the authors were also reviewed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of thyroid nodules increases with age. Although thyroid nodules in older adults have a lower risk of malignancy, identified cancers are more likely to be of high-risk histology. The goals of thyroid nodule evaluation and the tools used for diagnosis are similar for older and younger patients with thyroid nodules. However, limited evidence exists regarding thyroid nodule evaluation and management to guide personalized decision making in the geriatric population.

CONCLUSION

Considering patient context is significant in the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules in older adults. When making management decisions in this population, it is essential to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of thyroid nodule diagnosis and treatment, in view of older adults' higher prevalence of high-risk thyroid cancer as well as increased risk for multimorbidity, functional and cognitive decline, and treatment complications.

Cardiovascular Biomarkers and Imaging in Older Adults: JACC Council Perspectives

Whereas the burgeoning population of older adults is intrinsically vulnerable to cardiovascular disease, the utility of many management precepts that were validated in younger adults is often unclear. Whereas biomarker- and imaging-based tests are a major part of cardiovascular disease care, basic assumptions about their use and efficacy cannot be simply extrapolated to many older adults. Biology, physiology, and body composition change with aging, with important influences on cardiovascular disease testing procedures and their interpretation. Furthermore, clinical priorities of older adults are more heterogeneous, potentially undercutting the utility of testing data that are collected. The American College of Cardiology and the National Institutes on Aging, in collaboration with the American Geriatrics Society, convened, at the American College of Cardiology Heart House, a 2-day multidisciplinary workshop, "Diagnostic Testing in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Disease," to address these issues. This review summarizes key concepts, clinical limitations, and important opportunities for research.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: a sociological perspective on tackling a contemporary healthcare issue

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are increasingly discussed as a significant problem in contemporary healthcare but are yet to receive any significant sociological attention, over and above that which is arguably transferable from the medicalisation literature. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are often constructed as problems best addressed by educating patients and clinicians, and improving the relationships between them. The emergence of tools seeking to support decision-making and to facilitate patients' asking questions about whether interventions are really necessary supports this conceptualisation. This article questions whether significant traction on overdiagnosis and overtreatment is possible through these means alone, arguing that even when professionals and patients may wish to do less rather than more, the system within which care is delivered and received can make this challenging to achieve. Drawing on Scott's (Sociology, 2018, 52, 3) 'sociology of nothing', the article demonstrates that a sociological perspective on overdiagnosis and overtreatment recasts them as issues that must be understood as a consequence of the organisational, financial and cultural attributes of the system, not just individual interactions, and advances a research agenda for the area.

A scoping review and assessment of essential elements of shared decision-making of parent-involved interventions in child and adolescent mental health

Parents play a critical role in child and adolescent mental health care and treatment. With the increasing implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) across health settings, there is a growing need to understand the decision support interventions used to promote SDM in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The overall aim of this review is to identify and examine the existing decision support interventions available for parents. A broad search was conducted using the key concepts "shared decision-making", "parents" and "child and adolescent mental health". Five electronic databases were searched: PsycInfo, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. In addition to these relevant databases, we searched the Ottawa's Inventory of Decision Aids, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario website, Google, Google Play and known CAMHS' websites. The search identified 23 interventions available for use with parents. These interventions targeted parents providing care for children with ADHD, ASD, emotional and behavioural problems including depression (EBD), self-harm or universal mental health care. Various modalities including face-to-face, digital and paper-based versions were adopted. The majority of the interventions were able to "present options" (87%) and "discuss the pros and cons" (83%) of treatment. Time, accessibility and appropriateness of the intervention emerged as factors influencing usage and implementation of interventions. Our findings suggest that SDM interventions involving parents have been implemented differently across various presenting mental health difficulties in CAMHS. This review brings awareness of existing parent-involved interventions and has implications for the development, implementation and usage of new interventions.

Which Decisions For Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Distal Radius Fractures Should Be Shared?

PURPOSE

To evaluate, from the surgeon's perspective, the importance, feasibility, and appropriateness of sharing decisions during an episode of care of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or distal radius fracture in patients aged greater than 65 years.

METHODS

A consortium of 9 fellowship-trained hand/upper-limb surgeons used the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles Delphi Appropriateness method to evaluate the importance, feasibility, and appropriateness of sharing 27 decisions for CTS and 28 decisions for distal radius fractures in patients aged greater than 65 years. Panelists rated each measure on a scale of 1 (definitely not important/feasible/appropriate) to 9 (definitely important/feasible/appropriate) in 2 voting rounds with an intervening face-to-face discussion. Panelist agreement and disagreement were assessed using predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

Panelists achieved agreement on 16 decisions (29%) as important, 43 (78%) as feasible, and 17 (31%) as appropriate for sharing with patients. Twelve decisions met all 3 of these criteria and were therefore considered important, feasible, and appropriate to share with patients. Examples in CTS included decisions to perform extra confirmatory diagnostic testing, to have surgery, and to perform a steroid injection into the carpal tunnel. Examples in distal radius fracture management included the decision to have surgery, type of pain medication prescribed after surgery, and whether to remove the implant. The remaining 43 decisions did not reach consensus on the importance, feasibility, and appropriateness of sharing with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a validated consensus-building approach, we identified 12 decisions made during an episode of care for CTS or distal radius fracture that were important, feasible, and appropriate to share with patients from the surgeon's perspective. These decisions merit inclusion in shared decision-making models (eg, preoperative patient preference elicitation tools or decision aids) to align patient preferences with care decisions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Understanding which aspects of care are important, feasible, and appropriate to share with patients may improve patient-centered care by aligning patient preferences with care decisions.

Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVES

Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions.

CONCLUSION

Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

Educational programs to teach shared decision making to medical trainees: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of collaboration between patients and clinicians. An increasing number of educational programs to teach SDM have been developed. We aimed to summarize and evaluate the body of evidence assessing the outcomes of these programs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies that aimed to teach SDM to medical trainees. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to select studies, extract data and evaluate the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included. Most studies focused on residents/fellows (61 %) and combined a didactic component with a practical experience (50 % used a standardized patient). Overall, participants reported satisfaction with the courses. The effects on knowledge, attitudes/confidence and comfort with SDM were small; no clear improvement on SDM skills was noted. Evaluation of clinical behavior and outcomes was limited (3/18 studies). Studies had moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Very low quality evidence suggests that educational programs for teaching SDM to medical trainees are viewed as satisfactory and have a small impact on knowledge and comfort with SDM. Their impact on clinical skills, behaviors and patient outcomes is less clear.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Integration of formal and systematic outcomes evaluation (effects on behavior/clinical practice) should be part of future programs.

Defining high probability when making a diagnosis of asthma in primary care: mixed-methods consensus workshop

OBJECTIVE

Making the diagnosis of asthma is challenging. Guidelines recommend that clinicians identify a group at 'high probability' of asthma. High probability, however, is not numerically defined giving rise to uncertainty. The aim of this work was to build consensus on what constitutes a high probability of asthma in primary care. High probability was defined as the probability threshold at which there is enough information to make a firm diagnosis of asthma, and a subsequent negative test would not alter that opinion (assumed to be a false negative).

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study.

SETTING

A consensus workshop using modified nominal group technique was held during an international respiratory conference.

PARTICIPANTS

International conference attendees eligible if they had knowledge/experience of working in primary care, respiratory medicine and spoke English.

METHODS

Participants took part in facilitated discussions and voted over three rounds on what constituted a high probability of asthma diagnosis. The workshop was audio-recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed.

RESULTS

Based on final votes, the mean value for a high probability of asthma in primary care was 75% (SD 7.6), representing a perceived trade-off between limiting the number of false positives (more likely if a lower threshold was used) and pragmatism on the basis that first-line preventive therapies (ie, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids) are relatively low risk. The need to review response to treatment was strongly emphasised for detecting non-responders and reviewing the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

A consensus probability of 75% was the threshold at which the primary care participants in this workshop felt confident to establish the diagnosis of asthma, albeit with the caveat that a review of treatment response was essential. Contextual factors, including availability and timing of tests and the ease with which patients could be reviewed, influenced participants' decision making.

Balancing the dental occlusion and facial aesthetic features in cleft orthognathic surgery: Patient-centered concept for computer-aided planning

Patients with cleft lip and palate could develop dentofacial deformity characterized by malocclusion, midface retrusion, midline discrepancy and asymmetry. Cleft orthognathic surgery has evolved from the simple maxillary LeFort I advancement with correction of dental malocclusion to the current model of patient-centered approach focusing on skeletofacial reconstruction using computer-assisted diagnosis and planning. Three-dimensional imaging and surgical simulation have provided valuable information for facial aesthetics and surgical feasibility. Surgery-first approach and two-jaw orthognathic surgery have gradually become prevalent replacing the conventional method. A better dentofacial outcome is achieved with reduction of the burden of care.

Thyroid nodules: diagnostic evaluation based on thyroid cancer risk assessment

Thyroid nodules are extremely common and can be detected by sensitive imaging in more than 60% of the general population. They are often identified in patients without symptoms who are undergoing evaluation for other medical complaints. Indiscriminate evaluation of thyroid nodules with thyroid biopsy could cause a harmful epidemic of diagnoses of thyroid cancer, but inadequate selection of thyroid nodules for biopsy can lead to missed diagnoses of clinically relevant thyroid cancer. Recent clinical guidelines advocate a more conservative approach in the evaluation of thyroid nodules based on risk assessment for thyroid cancer, as determined by clinical and ultrasound features to guide the need for biopsy. Moreover, newer evidence suggests that for patients with indeterminate thyroid biopsy results, a combined assessment including the initial ultrasound risk stratification or other ancillary testing (molecular markers, second opinion on thyroid cytology) can further clarify the risk of thyroid cancer and the management strategies. This review summarizes the clinical importance of adequate evaluation of thyroid nodules, focuses on the clinical evidence for diagnostic tests that can clarify the risk of thyroid cancer, and highlights the importance of considering the patient's values and preferences when deciding on management strategies in the setting of uncertainty about the risk of thyroid cancer.

Comorbid chronic diseases and cancer diagnosis: disease-specific effects and underlying mechanisms

An earlier diagnosis is a key strategy for improving the outcomes of patients with cancer. However, achieving this goal can be challenging, particularly for the growing number of people with one or more chronic conditions (comorbidity/multimorbidity) at the time of diagnosis. Pre-existing chronic diseases might affect patient participation in cancer screening, help-seeking for new and/or changing symptoms and clinicians' decision-making on the use of diagnostic investigations. Evidence suggests, for example, that pre-existing pulmonary, cardiovascular, neurological and psychiatric conditions are all associated with a more advanced stage of cancer at diagnosis. By contrast, hypertension and certain gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal conditions might be associated with a more timely diagnosis. In this Review, we propose a comprehensive framework that encompasses the effects of disease-specific, patient-related and health-care-related factors on the diagnosis of cancer in individuals with pre-existing chronic illnesses. Several previously postulated aetiological mechanisms (including alternative explanations, competing demands and surveillance effects) are integrated with newly identified mechanisms, such as false reassurances, or patient concerns about appearing to be a hypochondriac. By considering specific effects of chronic diseases on diagnostic processes and outcomes, tailored early diagnosis initiatives can be developed to improve the outcomes of the large proportion of patients with cancer who have pre-existing chronic conditions.

Serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims: The “Big Three” – vascular events, infections, and cancers

Background

Diagnostic errors cause substantial preventable harm, but national estimates vary widely from 40,000 to 4 million annually. This cross-sectional analysis of a large medical malpractice claims database was the first phase of a three-phase project to estimate the US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms.

Methods

We sought to identify diseases accounting for the majority of serious misdiagnosis-related harms (morbidity/mortality). Diagnostic error cases were identified from Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO)’s Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database (2006–2015), representing 28.7% of all US malpractice claims. Diseases were grouped according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) that aggregates the International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes into clinically sensible groupings. We analyzed vascular events, infections, and cancers (the “Big Three”), including frequency, severity, and settings. High-severity (serious) harms were defined by scores of 6–9 (serious, permanent disability, or death) on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Severity of Injury Scale.

Results

From 55,377 closed claims, we analyzed 11,592 diagnostic error cases [median age 49, interquartile range (IQR) 36–60; 51.7% female]. These included 7379 with high-severity harms (53.0% death). The Big Three diseases accounted for 74.1% of high-severity cases (vascular events 22.8%, infections 13.5%, and cancers 37.8%). In aggregate, the top five from each category (n = 15 diseases) accounted for 47.1% of high-severity cases. The most frequent disease in each category, respectively, was stroke, sepsis, and lung cancer. Causes were disproportionately clinical judgment factors (85.7%) across categories (range 82.0–88.8%).

Conclusions

The Big Three diseases account for about three-fourths of serious misdiagnosis-related harms. Initial efforts to improve diagnosis should focus on vascular events, infections, and cancers.

A Mobile App to Support Parents Making Child Mental Health Decisions: Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is recognized as a person-centered approach to improving health care quality and outcomes. Few digital interventions to improve SDM have been tested in child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) settings. One such intervention is Power Up, a mobile phone app for young people (YP), which has shown some evidence of promise that YP who received Power Up reported greater levels of SDM. However, even though parents play a critical role in CAMH care and treatment, they often feel excluded from services.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol is for a pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized trial to develop and evaluate a Web app called Power Up for Parents (PUfP) to support parents and promote involvement in CAMH decisions.

METHODS

A 2-stage process, consisting of the development stage and pilot-testing stage of the initial PUfP prototype, will be conducted. At the development stage, a qualitative study with parents and clinicians will be conducted. The interviews will aim to capture the experience of making CAMH decisions, preferences for involvement in SDM, and determine situations within which PUfP can be useful. At the pilot-testing stage, up to 90 parents and their clinicians will be invited to participate in the testing of the prototype. Parents will be randomly allocated to receive the intervention or be part of the control group. This study design will allow us to assess the acceptability and usefulness of PUfP in addition to examining the feasibility of a prospective randomized trial. Clinicians' perceptions of the prototype and how it has influenced parents' involvement in SDM will also be examined.

RESULTS

Recruitment began in January 2019 and is scheduled to last for 10 months. Interviews and baseline data collection are currently in progress. To date, 11 CAMH sites have been recruited to take part in the study. It is anticipated that data collection will be completed by October 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of parents' involvement in CAMH care and treatment can lead to higher rates of dropout from care and lower adherence to therapeutic interventions. There are significant benefits to be gained globally if digital SDM interventions are adopted by parents and shown to be successful in CAMH settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39238984; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39238984.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14571.

Clinician-patient communication during the diagnostic workup: The ABIDE project

Introduction

We aimed to describe clinician-patient communication in the diagnostic process of memory clinics, specifically clinician behavior known to facilitate knowledgeable participation of patients during consultations.

Methods

In this multicenter, observational study, we audio-recorded routine diagnostic consultations of 41 clinicians and 136 patients/caregivers at eight memory clinics. Patients/caregivers completed surveys after each audiotaped consultation. We used a study-specific coding scheme to categorize communication behavior.

Results

Clinicians often provided information on (results of) diagnostic testing. They infrequently invited questions and/or checked understanding. Clinician behavior to involve patients in decision-making about diagnostic testing was limited. Of note, patients/caregivers rarely expressed their information or involvement preferences. Yet, approximately, one quarter of them would have liked to receive more information.

Discussion

Involving patients more explicitly by means of shared decision-making could benefit the quality of care provided in memory clinics because it enables clinicians to attune the diagnostic workup to the individual patient's needs.

•

Considering patient preferences in the diagnostic process enables personalized care.

•

Knowledgeable participation in diagnostic consultations is therefore warranted.

•

Clinicians often provided information on diagnostic procedures and test results.

•

Yet, they showed limited behavior to promote patients' understanding.

•

And patients were seldom involved in decision-making about diagnostic testing.

Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adrenal insufficiency is a rare disease characterized by cortisol deficiency. The evaluation of patients suspected of having adrenal insufficiency can be challenging because of the rarity of the disease and limitations in the biochemical assessment of the cortisol status by either basal or dynamic testing [adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test]. Prompt and adequate diagnosis is of paramount importance to avoid adverse outcomes. We aimed to summarize the recent developments in the conduction and interpretation of the ACTH stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ACTH stimulation test is commonly performed in patients suspected of having adrenal insufficiency when the basal serum cortisol levels are inconclusive. Recent literature has evaluated the impact of technical aspects such as time of the day the test is performed, type of assay and sample source used for cortisol measurement on the clinical value of this test, as well as the feasibility of reliable low dose ACTH testing.

SUMMARY

Clinicians evaluating patients with suspected adrenal insufficiency should take into consideration the clinical presentation (likelihood of adrenal insufficiency before testing) when interpreting the results of the ACTH stimulation test and be aware of clinical and technical factors that can affect cortisol values and diagnostic accuracy of this test.

Optimising laboratory monitoring of chronic conditions in primary care: a quality improvement framework

Monitoring of chronic conditions accounts for a significant proportion of blood testing in UK primary care; not all of this is based on evidence or guidelines. National benchmarking shows significant variation in testing rates for common blood tests. This project set out to standardise the blood tests used for monitoring of chronic conditions in primary care across North Devon, and to measure and reduce the harms of unwarranted testing. Chronic disease test groups were developed in line with current guidelines and implemented using one-click electronic test ordering systems. The main difference from previous general practitioner practice algorithms was removing the requirement for full blood count and liver function test monitoring for many conditions. Baseline harms of testing were measured and included significant costs, workload and patient anxiety. By defining the scale of the problem, we were able to leverage change across several cycles of quality improvement, using a pathology optimisation forum for peer-led improvement, and developing a framework focusing on what matters to patients. Overall primary care testing rates in North Devon fell by 14% for full blood count testing and 22% for liver function tests, but without a reduction in the number of tests showing possible significant pathology. We estimate that this has reduced testing costs by £200 000 across a population of around 180 000 people and has reduced downstream referral costs by a similar amount. Introduction of simple chronic disease test groups into primary care electronic ordering systems, when used alongside engagement with clinicians, leads to both quality improvement and reduction in system costs.

Patients' knowledge about the outcomes of thyroid biopsy: a patient survey

PURPOSE

Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the thyroid is an increasingly common outpatient procedure. Patients are counseled about the indications and risks of this procedure and informed consent is obtained. We aimed to assess the extent to which patients acquired necessary knowledge during this process.

METHODS

Survey study conducted in a thyroid nodule clinic at a referral center. Adult patients who had just undergone a thyroid biopsy were asked to complete a survey, including eight questions regarding the indications and potential outcomes of thyroid biopsy. The main outcome of the study was to assess the patients' knowledge based on the response to each individual survey question.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and ninety-seven patients were eligible, of which 196 (66%) completed the survey: most were women (76%), had adequate reading health literacy (95%) and a mean age of 58 years. Although 86% of patients correctly identified evaluation for thyroid cancer as the main indication for their biopsy, 56% were not aware of the likelihood of this diagnosis. Almost all (>90%) of respondents knew that results could be benign or malignant; fewer were aware of non-diagnostic (71%) or indeterminate (68%) outcomes, or of the need for additional diagnostic testing after the biopsy (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

After undergoing thyroid biopsy, a high proportion of well-educated patients remained unaware of their risk for thyroid cancer, potential outcomes, and downstream consequences of their biopsy. This quality gap raises the possibility that informed consent procedures that meet legal standards may leave patients undergoing thyroid biopsy paradoxically uninformed.

Diagnostic test guidelines based on high-quality evidence had greater rates of adherence: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association between the quality of guidelines for diagnostic tests (both the quality and reporting and the quality of the evidence underpinning recommendations) and nonadherence.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We previously published a systematic review that quantified the percentage of test use that was nonadherent with guidelines. For the present study, we assessed these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. We then assessed the quality of evidence underpinning recommendations within these guidelines using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Linear models were then constructed to determine the association between guideline nonadherence and (1) AGREE II score and (2) GRADE score.

RESULTS

There was no significant association between AGREE II score and nonadherent testing (P = 0.09). There was a significant association between GRADE score and nonadherence: recommendations based on low-quality and very low-quality evidence had 38% (P < 0.01) and 24% (P = 0.02) more nonadherent testing, compared with recommendations based on high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic test guideline recommendations based on high-quality evidence are adhered to more frequently.

Solving the Diagnostic Challenge: A Patient-Centered Approach

Arriving at an agreed-on and valid explanation for a clinical problem is important to patients as well as to clinicians. Current theories of how clinicians arrive at diagnoses, such as the threshold approach and the hypothetico-deductive model, do not accurately describe the diagnostic process in general practice. The problem space in general practice is so large and the prior probability of each disease being present is so small that it is not realistic to limit the diagnostic process to testing specific diagnoses on the clinician's list of possibilities. Here, new evidence is discussed about how patients and clinicians collaborate in specific ways, in particular, via a process that can be termed inductive foraging, which may lead to information that triggers a diagnostic routine. Navigating the diagnostic challenge and using patient-centered consulting are not separate tasks but rather synergistic.

Prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the evidence on prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings.

DESIGN

Umbrella review of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE up to August 2017; screening of references in included papers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Criteria included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies that gave a prevalence of incidental abnormalities ("incidentalomas"). An incidental imaging finding was defined as an imaging abnormality in a healthy, asymptomatic patient or an imaging abnormality in a symptomatic patient, where the abnormality was not apparently related to the patient's symptoms. Primary studies that measured the prevalence of incidentalomas in patients with a history of malignancy were also considered in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

20 systematic reviews (240 primary studies) were identified from 7098 references from the database search. Fifteen systematic reviews provided data to quantify the prevalence of incidentalomas, whereas 18 provided data to quantify the outcomes of incidentalomas (13 provided both). The prevalence of incidentalomas varied substantially between imaging tests; it was less than 5% for chest computed tomography for incidental pulmonary embolism in patients with and without cancer and whole body positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (for patients with and without cancer). Conversely, incidentalomas occurred in more than a third of images in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), chest computed tomography (for incidentalomas of thorax, abdomen, spine, or heart), and computed tomography colonoscopy (for extra-colonic incidentalomas). Intermediate rates occurred with MRI of the spine (22%) and brain (22%). The rate of malignancy in incidentalomas varied substantially between organs; the prevalence of malignancy was less than 5% in incidentalomas of the brain, parotid, and adrenal gland. Extra-colonic, prostatic, and colonic incidentalomas were malignant between 10% and 20% of the time, whereas renal, thyroid, and ovarian incidentalomas were malignant around a quarter of the time. Breast incidentalomas had the highest percentage of malignancy (42%, 95% confidence interval 31% to 54%). Many assessments had high between-study heterogeneity (15 of 20 meta-analyses with I² >50%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is large variability across different imaging techniques both in the prevalence of incidentalomas and in the prevalence of malignancy for specific organs. This umbrella review will aid clinicians and patients weigh up the pros and cons of requesting imaging scans and will help with management decisions after an incidentaloma diagnosis. Our results can underpin the creation of guidelines to assist these decisions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42017075679.