初级临床医生诊断确定性水平:一项回顾性队列研究。

Yang Chen, Myura Nagendran, Yakup Kilic, Dominic Cavlan, Adam Feather, Mark Westwood, Edward Rowland, Charles Gutteridge, Pier D Lambiase
{"title":"初级临床医生诊断确定性水平:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Yang Chen,&nbsp;Myura Nagendran,&nbsp;Yakup Kilic,&nbsp;Dominic Cavlan,&nbsp;Adam Feather,&nbsp;Mark Westwood,&nbsp;Edward Rowland,&nbsp;Charles Gutteridge,&nbsp;Pier D Lambiase","doi":"10.1177/18333583211019134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians' perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":"51 3","pages":"118-125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/18333583211019134","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Yang Chen,&nbsp;Myura Nagendran,&nbsp;Yakup Kilic,&nbsp;Dominic Cavlan,&nbsp;Adam Feather,&nbsp;Mark Westwood,&nbsp;Edward Rowland,&nbsp;Charles Gutteridge,&nbsp;Pier D Lambiase\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/18333583211019134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians' perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"volume\":\"51 3\",\"pages\":\"118-125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/18333583211019134\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583211019134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/6/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583211019134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:临床决策受到许多因素的影响,包括临床医生对最佳行动方案的确定性的看法。目的:表征工作诊断的文件和临床医生表达的实时确定性的相关水平,并衡量患者对临床医生决策确定性研究的重要性的意见。方法:这是一项单中心回顾性队列研究,纳入了2019年3月1日至2019年3月31日期间从急诊科入院的非会诊级临床医生及其评估。提取去识别的电子健康记录形式,包括记录的诊断类型和使用的确定性形容词。病人的意见是从焦点小组中征求的。结果:在研究期间,分析了850份办事员表格;420例为单一诊断,430例为多重诊断。在420例单一诊断中,67例(16%)被记录为症状或体征,16例(4%)是实验室结果定义的诊断。309例(74%)的诊断没有不确定性。在430例多重诊断中,有346例(80%)不确定,而没有不确定的84例(20%)不确定。病人焦点小组一致支持这项研究。结论:非会诊级临床医生的工作诊断文件差异很大。在近四分之三的单一诊断评估中,没有不确定性因素被暗示或量化。多重诊断的不确定性大于单一诊断。意义:文件标准化的提高将有助于未来的研究更好地分析和量化单一和多个工作诊断的诊断确定性。这可能导致后续检查它们与重要过程或临床结果测量的关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians' perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue.

Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty.

Method: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group.

Results: During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research.

Conclusion: The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses.

Implications: Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health information management students' work-integrated learning (professional practice placements): Where do they go and what do they do? Physician-clinical coder collaboration effectively improves coding accuracy: A single-centre prospective study in China. Physicians' acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. The health information management workforce: Looking to the future. Demystifying environmental health-related diseases: Using ICD codes to facilitate environmental health clinical referrals.
×
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