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

IF 2.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnosis Pub Date : 2023-09-26 eCollection Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2023-0085
Athena P DeGennaro, Natalia Gonzalez, Susan Peterson, Kelly T Gleason
{"title":"How do patients and care partners describe diagnostic uncertainty in an emergency department or urgent care setting?","authors":"Athena P DeGennaro, Natalia Gonzalez, Susan Peterson, Kelly T Gleason","doi":"10.1515/dx-2023-0085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Little is known about how patients perceive diagnostic uncertainty. We sought to understand how patients and care partners perceive uncertainty in an emergency or urgent care setting, where making a final diagnosis is often not possible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We administered a survey to a nationally representative panel on patient-reported diagnostic excellence in an emergency department or urgent care setting. The survey included items specific to perceived diagnostic excellence, visit characteristics, and demographics. We analyzed responses to two open-ended questions among those who reported uncertainty in the explanation they were given. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, and compared by whether respondents agreed or disagreed the explanation they were given was true.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,116 respondents, 106 (10 %) reported that the care team was not certain in the explanation of their health problem. Five themes were identified in the open-ended responses: poor communication (73 %), uncertainty made transparent (10 %), incorrect information provided (9 %), inadequate testing equipment (4 %), and unable to determine (4 %). Of the respondents who reported uncertainty, 21 % (n=22/106) reported the explanation of their problem given was not true.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of this analysis suggest that the majority of patients and their care partners do not equate uncertainty with a wrong explanation of their health problem, and that poor communication was the most commonly cited reason for perceived uncertainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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
患者和护理伙伴如何描述急诊科或紧急护理环境中的诊断不确定性?
目的:对患者如何感知诊断的不确定性知之甚少。我们试图了解患者和护理伙伴如何看待紧急或紧急护理环境中的不确定性,在这种情况下,通常无法做出最终诊断。方法:我们对一个具有全国代表性的小组进行了一项调查,调查患者在急诊科或急救环境中报告的卓越诊断。该调查包括特定于感知卓越诊断、就诊特征和人口统计的项目。我们分析了那些报告解释不确定的人对两个开放式问题的回答。使用归纳法确定主题,并通过受访者是否同意或不同意他们给出的解释进行比较。结果:在1116名受访者中,106人(10 %) 据报道,护理团队对他们的健康问题的解释并不确定。在不限成员名额的答复中确定了五个主题:沟通不畅(73 %), 透明度的不确定性(10 %), 提供的信息不正确(9 %), 测试设备不足(4 %), 无法确定(4 %). 在报告不确定性的受访者中,21 % (n=22/106)报告说,对他们问题的解释不正确。结论:这项分析的结果表明,大多数患者及其护理伙伴并没有将不确定性等同于对其健康问题的错误解释,沟通不畅是感知不确定性的最常见原因。
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
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
期刊最新文献
Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of persistent dysphagia and patient partnership. Root cause analysis of cases involving diagnosis. A delayed diagnosis of hyperthyroidism in a patient with persistent vomiting in the presence of Chiari type 1 malformation. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1) as blood biomarkers of mild acute traumatic brain injury (mTBI) or sport-related concussion (SRC) in adult subjects. Bridging the divide: addressing discrepancies between clinical guidelines, policy guidelines, and biomarker utilization.
×
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