基于国家调查结果对诊断问题或错误的后果进行患者知情的探索。

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2024-11-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2024.1474073
Kelly T Gleason, Christina T Yuan, Helen Haskell, Michelle A Anderson, Jane A Evered, Kathryn M McDonald
{"title":"基于国家调查结果对诊断问题或错误的后果进行患者知情的探索。","authors":"Kelly T Gleason, Christina T Yuan, Helen Haskell, Michelle A Anderson, Jane A Evered, Kathryn M McDonald","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2024.1474073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the prevalence and devastating consequences of diagnostic breakdowns, there have been minimal efforts to systematically collect patient insight into diagnostic problems and mistakes. Collaborating with patient advocates to guide how patient-derived insights are interpreted and used is a critical, yet often overlooked, approach to identifying actionable solutions that speak to patients' priorities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We collaborated with patient advocate co-authors to guide our understanding of findings from a mixed methods survey on diagnostic problems and mistakes, and report implications for patient engagement at three levels of action: (1) individual level before, during, after encounters (<i>micro</i>); (2) within health service delivery systems (<i>meso</i>); and (3) policy advocacy (<i>macro</i>).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our research team applied narrative elicitation methods to conduct a novel survey about Americans' diagnostic experiences in a national, population-based survey. We shared early results with patient co-authors who highlighted the importance of further exploring how health systems and clinicians address the aftermath of diagnostic mishaps. Based on their input, we summarized the quantitative and qualitative survey results about the aftermath and worked with our patient co-authors to explore how findings might inform actionable next steps, including efforts to catalyze patient action, quality improvement efforts, and policy reform.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 3,684 survey respondents, about a third (33.0%, 1,216/3,684) of screened households reported diagnostic problems and mistakes in the past four years involving either themselves (18.9%, 697/3,684) or someone close to them (14.1%, 519/3,684). In the aftermath of a diagnostic mishap, over a third reported that someone in the healthcare setting where the mistake occurred acknowledged the mistake (35.9%, 432/1,204). In qualitative findings, reports that the health system \"did nothing\" surfacing as the most common response. Patient co-authors confirmed the results resonated with their experiences and emphasized the need for health systems to take accountability when a mishap occurs and to take follow-up actions to prevent future mishaps.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Patients and care partners not only want and deserve acknowledgement of diagnostic problems or mistakes in their own care, they also want assurance that steps are being taken to prevent similar events from happening to others. Across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of action, working with patients to understand and act on contributors to diagnostic breakdowns is aligned with high-reliability organizing principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"4 ","pages":"1474073"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11634834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-informed exploration of the aftermath of a diagnostic problem or mistake based on results of a national survey.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly T Gleason, Christina T Yuan, Helen Haskell, Michelle A Anderson, Jane A Evered, Kathryn M McDonald\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frhs.2024.1474073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the prevalence and devastating consequences of diagnostic breakdowns, there have been minimal efforts to systematically collect patient insight into diagnostic problems and mistakes. Collaborating with patient advocates to guide how patient-derived insights are interpreted and used is a critical, yet often overlooked, approach to identifying actionable solutions that speak to patients' priorities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We collaborated with patient advocate co-authors to guide our understanding of findings from a mixed methods survey on diagnostic problems and mistakes, and report implications for patient engagement at three levels of action: (1) individual level before, during, after encounters (<i>micro</i>); (2) within health service delivery systems (<i>meso</i>); and (3) policy advocacy (<i>macro</i>).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our research team applied narrative elicitation methods to conduct a novel survey about Americans' diagnostic experiences in a national, population-based survey. We shared early results with patient co-authors who highlighted the importance of further exploring how health systems and clinicians address the aftermath of diagnostic mishaps. Based on their input, we summarized the quantitative and qualitative survey results about the aftermath and worked with our patient co-authors to explore how findings might inform actionable next steps, including efforts to catalyze patient action, quality improvement efforts, and policy reform.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 3,684 survey respondents, about a third (33.0%, 1,216/3,684) of screened households reported diagnostic problems and mistakes in the past four years involving either themselves (18.9%, 697/3,684) or someone close to them (14.1%, 519/3,684). In the aftermath of a diagnostic mishap, over a third reported that someone in the healthcare setting where the mistake occurred acknowledged the mistake (35.9%, 432/1,204). In qualitative findings, reports that the health system \\\"did nothing\\\" surfacing as the most common response. Patient co-authors confirmed the results resonated with their experiences and emphasized the need for health systems to take accountability when a mishap occurs and to take follow-up actions to prevent future mishaps.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Patients and care partners not only want and deserve acknowledgement of diagnostic problems or mistakes in their own care, they also want assurance that steps are being taken to prevent similar events from happening to others. Across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of action, working with patients to understand and act on contributors to diagnostic breakdowns is aligned with high-reliability organizing principles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in health services\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"1474073\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11634834/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in health services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1474073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1474073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:尽管诊断故障的普遍性和毁灭性的后果,有最小的努力,系统地收集患者洞察诊断问题和错误。与患者倡导者合作,指导如何解释和使用患者得出的见解,这是确定符合患者优先事项的可操作解决方案的关键方法,但往往被忽视。目的:我们与患者倡导者合作,指导我们对诊断问题和错误的混合方法调查结果的理解,并报告在三个层面的行动对患者参与的影响:(1)个体层面的就诊前、就诊中、就诊后(微观);(2)在卫生服务提供系统内;(3)政策倡导(宏观)。方法:我们的研究小组采用叙事启发法,对美国人的诊断经历进行了一项新颖的调查,这是一项全国性的、基于人口的调查。我们与患者共同作者分享了早期结果,他们强调了进一步探索卫生系统和临床医生如何处理诊断失误后果的重要性。根据他们的意见,我们总结了有关后果的定量和定性调查结果,并与我们的患者合著者一起探讨了这些发现如何为可操作的后续步骤提供信息,包括促进患者行动的努力、质量改进的努力和政策改革。结果:在3,684名调查受访者中,大约三分之一(33.0%,1,316 /3,684)的接受筛查的家庭报告在过去四年中涉及自己(18.9%,697/3,684)或与其亲近的人(14.1%,519/3,684)的诊断问题和错误。在诊断事故发生后,超过三分之一的人报告说,在发生错误的医疗保健环境中有人承认了错误(35.9%,432/1,204)。在定性调查结果中,报告称卫生系统“无所作为”是最常见的反应。患者的共同作者证实了结果与他们的经历产生了共鸣,并强调卫生系统需要在发生事故时承担责任,并采取后续行动以防止未来发生事故。讨论:患者和护理伙伴不仅希望并且应该承认他们自己护理中的诊断问题或错误,他们还希望确保正在采取措施防止类似事件发生在其他人身上。在微观、中观和宏观层面的行动中,与患者一起了解并对导致诊断故障的因素采取行动,符合高可靠性的组织原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient-informed exploration of the aftermath of a diagnostic problem or mistake based on results of a national survey.

Introduction: Despite the prevalence and devastating consequences of diagnostic breakdowns, there have been minimal efforts to systematically collect patient insight into diagnostic problems and mistakes. Collaborating with patient advocates to guide how patient-derived insights are interpreted and used is a critical, yet often overlooked, approach to identifying actionable solutions that speak to patients' priorities.

Objective: We collaborated with patient advocate co-authors to guide our understanding of findings from a mixed methods survey on diagnostic problems and mistakes, and report implications for patient engagement at three levels of action: (1) individual level before, during, after encounters (micro); (2) within health service delivery systems (meso); and (3) policy advocacy (macro).

Methods: Our research team applied narrative elicitation methods to conduct a novel survey about Americans' diagnostic experiences in a national, population-based survey. We shared early results with patient co-authors who highlighted the importance of further exploring how health systems and clinicians address the aftermath of diagnostic mishaps. Based on their input, we summarized the quantitative and qualitative survey results about the aftermath and worked with our patient co-authors to explore how findings might inform actionable next steps, including efforts to catalyze patient action, quality improvement efforts, and policy reform.

Results: Of the 3,684 survey respondents, about a third (33.0%, 1,216/3,684) of screened households reported diagnostic problems and mistakes in the past four years involving either themselves (18.9%, 697/3,684) or someone close to them (14.1%, 519/3,684). In the aftermath of a diagnostic mishap, over a third reported that someone in the healthcare setting where the mistake occurred acknowledged the mistake (35.9%, 432/1,204). In qualitative findings, reports that the health system "did nothing" surfacing as the most common response. Patient co-authors confirmed the results resonated with their experiences and emphasized the need for health systems to take accountability when a mishap occurs and to take follow-up actions to prevent future mishaps.

Discussion: Patients and care partners not only want and deserve acknowledgement of diagnostic problems or mistakes in their own care, they also want assurance that steps are being taken to prevent similar events from happening to others. Across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of action, working with patients to understand and act on contributors to diagnostic breakdowns is aligned with high-reliability organizing principles.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What is improvement science, and what makes it different? An outline of the field and its frontiers. Improving the health of the rural population in India through bundling WASH practices. Patient-reported outcome measures to deliver patient and family-centered care in pediatrics: the ball is now in our court. The power and pain of words: how language matters in responding to patients after harm. The impact of centralization on structural changes in healthcare: when it works.
×
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