TY - JOUR
T1 - What contributes to diagnostic error or delay? a qualitative exploration across diverse acute care settings in the united states
AU - Barwise, Amelia
AU - Leppin, Aaron
AU - Dong, Yue
AU - Huang, Chanyan
AU - Pinevich, Yuliya
AU - Herasevich, Svetlana
AU - Soleimani, Jalal
AU - Gajic, Ognjen
AU - Pickering, Brian
AU - Kumbamu, Ashok
N1 - Funding Information:
From the *Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, †Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit (KER), ‡Department of Anesthesiology and Periop-erative Medicine, and §Kern Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Correspondence: Amelia Barwise, MB, BCh, BAO, PhD, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e‐mail: Barwise.Amelia@mayo.edu). This study was supported by grant number R18HS026609 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and by a Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Grant award. The funding agencies did not have any role in the study design, conduct, or reporting. Its contents do not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Society of Critical Care Medicine. The authors have no actual or potential conflicts of interest. Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.journalpatientsafety.com). Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Objectives: Diagnostic error and delay is a prevalent and impactful problem. This study was part of a mixed-methods approach to understand the organizational, clinician, and patient factors contributing to diagnostic error and delay among acutely ill patients within a health system, as well as recommendations for the development of tailored, targeted, feasible, and effective interventions. Methods:We did a multisite qualitative study using focus group methodology to explore the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders. We used a conceptual framework that characterized diagnostic error and delay as occurring within 1 of 3 stages of the patient's diagnostic journey-critical information gathering, synthesis of key information, and decision making and communication. We developed our moderator guide based on the sociotechnical frameworks previously described by Holden and Singh for understanding noncognitive factors that lead to diagnostic error and delay. Deidentified focus group transcriptswere coded in triplicate and to consensus over a series of meetings. A final coded data set was then uploaded into NVivo software. The data were then analyzed to generate overarching themes and categories. Results: We recruited a total of 64 participants across 4 sites from emergency departments, hospital floor, and intensive care unit settings into 11 focus groups. Clinicians perceive that diverse organizational, communication and coordination, individual clinician, and patient factors interact to impede the process of making timely and accurate diagnoses. Conclusions: This study highlights the complex sociotechnical system within which individual clinicians operate and the contributions of systems, processes, and institutional factors to diagnostic error and delay.
AB - Objectives: Diagnostic error and delay is a prevalent and impactful problem. This study was part of a mixed-methods approach to understand the organizational, clinician, and patient factors contributing to diagnostic error and delay among acutely ill patients within a health system, as well as recommendations for the development of tailored, targeted, feasible, and effective interventions. Methods:We did a multisite qualitative study using focus group methodology to explore the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders. We used a conceptual framework that characterized diagnostic error and delay as occurring within 1 of 3 stages of the patient's diagnostic journey-critical information gathering, synthesis of key information, and decision making and communication. We developed our moderator guide based on the sociotechnical frameworks previously described by Holden and Singh for understanding noncognitive factors that lead to diagnostic error and delay. Deidentified focus group transcriptswere coded in triplicate and to consensus over a series of meetings. A final coded data set was then uploaded into NVivo software. The data were then analyzed to generate overarching themes and categories. Results: We recruited a total of 64 participants across 4 sites from emergency departments, hospital floor, and intensive care unit settings into 11 focus groups. Clinicians perceive that diverse organizational, communication and coordination, individual clinician, and patient factors interact to impede the process of making timely and accurate diagnoses. Conclusions: This study highlights the complex sociotechnical system within which individual clinicians operate and the contributions of systems, processes, and institutional factors to diagnostic error and delay.
KW - Diagnostic delay
KW - Diagnostic error
KW - Focus groups
KW - Qualitative research
KW - Sociotechnical system
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106552847&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85106552847&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000817
DO - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000817
M3 - Article
C2 - 33852544
AN - SCOPUS:85106552847
SN - 1549-8417
VL - 17
SP - 239
EP - 248
JO - Journal of Patient Safety
JF - Journal of Patient Safety
IS - 4
ER -