Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017037
Caitríona Cox, Thea Hatfield, Zoë Fritz
{"title":"Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study.","authors":"Caitríona Cox, Thea Hatfield, Zoë Fritz","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Safety-netting is intended to protect against harm from uncertainty in diagnosis/disease trajectory. Despite recommendations to communicate diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting, this is not always done.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore how and why doctors safety-netted in response to several clinical scenarios, within the broader context of exploring how doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Doctors working in internal medical specialties (n=36) from five hospitals were given vignettes in a randomised order (all depicting different clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty). After reading each, they told an interviewer what they would tell a 'typical patient' in this situation. A follow-up semistructured interview explored reasons for their communication. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. We examined <i>how</i> participants safety-netted using a content analysis approach, and <i>why</i> they safety-netting with thematic analysis of the semistructured follow-up interviews using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed n=78 instances of safety-netting (across 108 vignette encounters). We found significant variation in how participants safety-netted. Safety-netting was common (although not universal), but clinicians differed in the detail provided about symptoms to be alert for, and the action advised. Although many viewed safety-netting as an important tool for managing diagnostic uncertainty, diagnostic uncertainty was infrequently explicitly discussed; most advised patients to return if symptoms worsened or new 'red flag' symptoms developed, but they rarely linked this directly to the possibility of diagnostic error. Some participants expressed concerns that communicating diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting may cause anxiety for patients or could drive inappropriate reattendance/over-investigation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants safety-netted variously, even when presented with identical clinical information. Although safety-netting was seen as important in avoiding diagnostic error, concerns about worrying patients may have limited discussion about diagnostic uncertainty. Research is needed to determine whether communicating diagnostic uncertainty makes safety-netting more effective at preventing harm associated with diagnostic error, and whether it causes significant patient anxiety.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"769-779"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017037","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Safety-netting is intended to protect against harm from uncertainty in diagnosis/disease trajectory. Despite recommendations to communicate diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting, this is not always done.

Aims: To explore how and why doctors safety-netted in response to several clinical scenarios, within the broader context of exploring how doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty.

Methods: Doctors working in internal medical specialties (n=36) from five hospitals were given vignettes in a randomised order (all depicting different clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty). After reading each, they told an interviewer what they would tell a 'typical patient' in this situation. A follow-up semistructured interview explored reasons for their communication. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. We examined how participants safety-netted using a content analysis approach, and why they safety-netting with thematic analysis of the semistructured follow-up interviews using thematic analysis.

Results: We observed n=78 instances of safety-netting (across 108 vignette encounters). We found significant variation in how participants safety-netted. Safety-netting was common (although not universal), but clinicians differed in the detail provided about symptoms to be alert for, and the action advised. Although many viewed safety-netting as an important tool for managing diagnostic uncertainty, diagnostic uncertainty was infrequently explicitly discussed; most advised patients to return if symptoms worsened or new 'red flag' symptoms developed, but they rarely linked this directly to the possibility of diagnostic error. Some participants expressed concerns that communicating diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting may cause anxiety for patients or could drive inappropriate reattendance/over-investigation.

Conclusions: Participants safety-netted variously, even when presented with identical clinical information. Although safety-netting was seen as important in avoiding diagnostic error, concerns about worrying patients may have limited discussion about diagnostic uncertainty. Research is needed to determine whether communicating diagnostic uncertainty makes safety-netting more effective at preventing harm associated with diagnostic error, and whether it causes significant patient anxiety.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沟通诊断不确定性在安全网流程中的作用:一项小插曲研究的启示。
背景:安全网旨在防止因诊断/疾病轨迹的不确定性而造成伤害。目的:在探究医生如何交流诊断不确定性的大背景下,探讨医生在应对几种临床情景时如何以及为何进行安全防护:来自五家医院的内科专业医生(36 人)按照随机顺序获得了小故事(均描述了涉及诊断不确定性的不同临床情景)。阅读完每个小故事后,他们告诉采访者在这种情况下他们会对 "典型病人 "说些什么。后续的半结构式访谈探讨了他们进行交流的原因。我们对访谈进行了记录、转录和编码。我们使用内容分析法研究了参与者如何进行安全沟通,并使用主题分析法对半结构式后续访谈进行了主题分析,研究了他们为什么进行安全沟通:我们观察到了 78 个安全网实例(涉及 108 个小故事)。我们发现参与者的安全网方式存在很大差异。安全网是常见的(尽管并不普遍),但临床医生在提供应警惕的症状细节和建议采取的行动方面存在差异。虽然许多人认为安全网是管理诊断不确定性的重要工具,但很少明确讨论诊断不确定性;大多数人建议患者在症状恶化或出现新的 "红旗 "症状时复诊,但他们很少将此与诊断错误的可能性直接联系起来。一些参与者表示担心,在安全网中告知诊断不确定性可能会引起患者焦虑,或导致不适当的复诊/过度检查:结论:即使在临床信息完全相同的情况下,参与者的安全网也各不相同。尽管安全网被认为对避免诊断错误很重要,但担心让患者担心可能会限制对诊断不确定性的讨论。还需要进行研究,以确定沟通诊断的不确定性是否会使安全网更有效地防止与诊断错误相关的伤害,以及是否会引起患者的严重焦虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review. Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing a patient-led escalation system: a qualitative study. Assessing patient work system factors for medication management during transition of care among older adults: an observational study. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: the only reasons for regulators to target individuals. Patient-activated escalation in hospital: patients and their families are ready!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1