Paul A Bergl, Neehal Shukla, Jatan Shah, Marium Khan, Jayshil J Patel, Rahul S Nanchal
{"title":"影响重症监护病房临床医生诊断准确性的因素-一项观察性研究。","authors":"Paul A Bergl, Neehal Shukla, Jatan Shah, Marium Khan, Jayshil J Patel, Rahul S Nanchal","doi":"10.1515/dx-2023-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Diagnostic errors are a source of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, contextual factors influencing clinicians' diagnostic performance have not been studied in authentic ICU settings. We sought to determine the accuracy of ICU clinicians' diagnostic impressions and to characterize how various contextual factors, including self-reported stress levels and perceptions about the patient's prognosis and complexity, impact diagnostic accuracy. We also explored diagnostic calibration, i.e. the balance of accuracy and confidence, among ICU clinicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an observational cohort study in an academic medical ICU. Between June and August 2019, we interviewed ICU clinicians during routine care about their patients' diagnoses, their confidence, and other contextual factors. Subsequently, using adjudicated final diagnoses as the reference standard, two investigators independently rated clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and on each patient on a given day (\"patient-day\") using 5-point Likert scales. We conducted analyses using both restrictive and conservative definitions of clinicians' accuracy based on the two reviewers' ratings of accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We reviewed clinicians' responses for 464 unique patient-days, which included 255 total patients. Attending physicians had the greatest diagnostic accuracy (77-90 %, rated as three or higher on 5-point Likert scale) followed by the team's primary fellow (73-88 %). Attending physician and fellows were also least affected by contextual factors. Diagnostic calibration was greatest among ICU fellows.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Additional studies are needed to better understand how contextual factors influence different clinicians' diagnostic reasoning in the ICU.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"31-39"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy among intensive care unit clinicians - an observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Paul A Bergl, Neehal Shukla, Jatan Shah, Marium Khan, Jayshil J Patel, Rahul S Nanchal\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/dx-2023-0026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Diagnostic errors are a source of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, contextual factors influencing clinicians' diagnostic performance have not been studied in authentic ICU settings. We sought to determine the accuracy of ICU clinicians' diagnostic impressions and to characterize how various contextual factors, including self-reported stress levels and perceptions about the patient's prognosis and complexity, impact diagnostic accuracy. We also explored diagnostic calibration, i.e. the balance of accuracy and confidence, among ICU clinicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an observational cohort study in an academic medical ICU. Between June and August 2019, we interviewed ICU clinicians during routine care about their patients' diagnoses, their confidence, and other contextual factors. Subsequently, using adjudicated final diagnoses as the reference standard, two investigators independently rated clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and on each patient on a given day (\\\"patient-day\\\") using 5-point Likert scales. We conducted analyses using both restrictive and conservative definitions of clinicians' accuracy based on the two reviewers' ratings of accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We reviewed clinicians' responses for 464 unique patient-days, which included 255 total patients. Attending physicians had the greatest diagnostic accuracy (77-90 %, rated as three or higher on 5-point Likert scale) followed by the team's primary fellow (73-88 %). Attending physician and fellows were also least affected by contextual factors. Diagnostic calibration was greatest among ICU fellows.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Additional studies are needed to better understand how contextual factors influence different clinicians' diagnostic reasoning in the ICU.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnosis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"31-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"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-2023-0026\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0026","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}
Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy among intensive care unit clinicians - an observational study.
Objectives: Diagnostic errors are a source of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, contextual factors influencing clinicians' diagnostic performance have not been studied in authentic ICU settings. We sought to determine the accuracy of ICU clinicians' diagnostic impressions and to characterize how various contextual factors, including self-reported stress levels and perceptions about the patient's prognosis and complexity, impact diagnostic accuracy. We also explored diagnostic calibration, i.e. the balance of accuracy and confidence, among ICU clinicians.
Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study in an academic medical ICU. Between June and August 2019, we interviewed ICU clinicians during routine care about their patients' diagnoses, their confidence, and other contextual factors. Subsequently, using adjudicated final diagnoses as the reference standard, two investigators independently rated clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and on each patient on a given day ("patient-day") using 5-point Likert scales. We conducted analyses using both restrictive and conservative definitions of clinicians' accuracy based on the two reviewers' ratings of accuracy.
Results: We reviewed clinicians' responses for 464 unique patient-days, which included 255 total patients. Attending physicians had the greatest diagnostic accuracy (77-90 %, rated as three or higher on 5-point Likert scale) followed by the team's primary fellow (73-88 %). Attending physician and fellows were also least affected by contextual factors. Diagnostic calibration was greatest among ICU fellows.
Conclusions: Additional studies are needed to better understand how contextual factors influence different clinicians' diagnostic reasoning in the ICU.
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