Cargando…
Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol
INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study proto...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34561251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044194 |
_version_ | 1784575375285682176 |
---|---|
author | Daniel, Michelle Park, SunYoung Seifert, Colleen M Chandanabhumma, P Paul Fetters, Michael D Wilson, Eric Canvasser, Andrew B Singh, Hardeep Pasupathy, Kalyan Mahajan, Prashant |
author_facet | Daniel, Michelle Park, SunYoung Seifert, Colleen M Chandanabhumma, P Paul Fetters, Michael D Wilson, Eric Canvasser, Andrew B Singh, Hardeep Pasupathy, Kalyan Mahajan, Prashant |
author_sort | Daniel, Michelle |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human–human and human–system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8475137 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84751372021-10-08 Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol Daniel, Michelle Park, SunYoung Seifert, Colleen M Chandanabhumma, P Paul Fetters, Michael D Wilson, Eric Canvasser, Andrew B Singh, Hardeep Pasupathy, Kalyan Mahajan, Prashant BMJ Open Emergency Medicine INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human–human and human–system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8475137/ /pubmed/34561251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044194 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Emergency Medicine Daniel, Michelle Park, SunYoung Seifert, Colleen M Chandanabhumma, P Paul Fetters, Michael D Wilson, Eric Canvasser, Andrew B Singh, Hardeep Pasupathy, Kalyan Mahajan, Prashant Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
title | Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
title_full | Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
title_fullStr | Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
title_short | Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
title_sort | understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol |
topic | Emergency Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34561251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044194 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT danielmichelle understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT parksunyoung understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT seifertcolleenm understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT chandanabhummappaul understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT fettersmichaeld understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT wilsoneric understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT canvasserandrewb understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT singhhardeep understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT pasupathykalyan understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol AT mahajanprashant understandingdiagnosticprocessesinemergencydepartmentsamixedmethodscasestudyprotocol |