Using Patient Experience Surveys to Identify Potential Diagnostic Safety Breakdowns: A Mixed Methods Study.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001283
Kelley M Baker, Mark Brahier, Mara Penne, Mary A Hill, Siara Davis, William J Gallagher, Kristen E Miller, Kelly M Smith
{"title":"Using Patient Experience Surveys to Identify Potential Diagnostic Safety Breakdowns: A Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Kelley M Baker, Mark Brahier, Mara Penne, Mary A Hill, Siara Davis, William J Gallagher, Kristen E Miller, Kelly M Smith","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>One in 20 outpatients in the United States experiences a diagnostic error each year, but there are no validated methods for collecting feedback from patients on diagnostic safety. We examined patient experience surveys to determine whether patients' free text comments indicated diagnostic breakdowns. Our objective was to evaluate associations between patient-perceived diagnostic breakdowns reported in free text comments and patients' responses to structured survey questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an exploratory mixed methods study using data from patient experience surveys collected from adult ambulatory care patients March 2020 to June 2020 in a large U.S. health system. Data analysis included content analysis of qualitative data and statistical analysis of quantitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2525 surveys with negative comments, 619 patients (24.5%) identified diagnostic breakdowns, including issues with accuracy (n = 282, 46%), timeliness (n = 243, 39%), or communication (n = 290, 47%); some patients (n = 181) reported breakdowns in multiple categories. Patients who gave a low average score (50 or less on a 100-point scale) on provider questions were almost seven times more likely to perceive a diagnostic breakdown than patients who scored their provider higher. Similarly, patients who gave a low average score on practice-related questions were twice as likely to perceive a diagnostic breakdown.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient feedback in routinely collected patient experience surveys is a valuable and actionable information source on diagnostic breakdowns in the ambulatory setting. The more easily monitored structured survey data provide a screening method to identify encounters that may have included a patient-perceived diagnostic breakdown and therefore require further examination.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001283","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: One in 20 outpatients in the United States experiences a diagnostic error each year, but there are no validated methods for collecting feedback from patients on diagnostic safety. We examined patient experience surveys to determine whether patients' free text comments indicated diagnostic breakdowns. Our objective was to evaluate associations between patient-perceived diagnostic breakdowns reported in free text comments and patients' responses to structured survey questions.

Methods: We conducted an exploratory mixed methods study using data from patient experience surveys collected from adult ambulatory care patients March 2020 to June 2020 in a large U.S. health system. Data analysis included content analysis of qualitative data and statistical analysis of quantitative data.

Results: In 2525 surveys with negative comments, 619 patients (24.5%) identified diagnostic breakdowns, including issues with accuracy (n = 282, 46%), timeliness (n = 243, 39%), or communication (n = 290, 47%); some patients (n = 181) reported breakdowns in multiple categories. Patients who gave a low average score (50 or less on a 100-point scale) on provider questions were almost seven times more likely to perceive a diagnostic breakdown than patients who scored their provider higher. Similarly, patients who gave a low average score on practice-related questions were twice as likely to perceive a diagnostic breakdown.

Conclusions: Patient feedback in routinely collected patient experience surveys is a valuable and actionable information source on diagnostic breakdowns in the ambulatory setting. The more easily monitored structured survey data provide a screening method to identify encounters that may have included a patient-perceived diagnostic breakdown and therefore require further examination.

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
利用患者体验调查确定潜在的诊断安全漏洞:混合方法研究。
目的:在美国,每年每 20 名门诊患者中就有一人出现诊断错误,但目前还没有有效的方法来收集患者对诊断安全性的反馈意见。我们对患者体验调查进行了研究,以确定患者的自由文本评论是否表明诊断失误。我们的目标是评估自由文本评论中报告的患者感知的诊断故障与患者对结构化调查问题的回答之间的关联:我们使用从 2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 6 月在美国一家大型医疗系统中对成人非住院治疗患者进行的患者体验调查数据,开展了一项探索性混合方法研究。数据分析包括定性数据的内容分析和定量数据的统计分析:在2525份带有负面意见的调查中,619名患者(24.5%)发现了诊断故障,包括准确性问题(n = 282,46%)、及时性问题(n = 243,39%)或沟通问题(n = 290,47%);一些患者(n = 181)报告了多个类别的故障。对医疗服务提供者的问题给出较低平均分(100 分制中 50 分或以下)的患者认为诊断失误的可能性几乎是对医疗服务提供者打分较高的患者的七倍。同样,在与医疗实践相关的问题上平均得分较低的患者认为诊断失误的可能性也是平均得分较高的患者的两倍:定期收集的患者体验调查中的患者反馈是门诊环境中诊断失误的宝贵且可操作的信息来源。更易于监测的结构化调查数据提供了一种筛选方法,可用于识别可能包含患者认为的诊断失误并因此需要进一步检查的就诊情况。
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
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
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