Cargando…

Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle

BACKGROUND: Errors in reasoning are a common cause of diagnostic error. However, it is difficult to improve performance partly because providers receive little feedback on diagnostic performance. Examining means of providing consistent feedback and enabling continuous improvement may provide novel i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fernandez Branson, Carolina, Williams, Michelle, Chan, Teresa M, Graber, Mark L, Lane, Kathleen P, Grieser, Skip, Landis-Lewis, Zach, Cooke, James, Upadhyay, Divvy K, Mondoux, Shawn, Singh, Hardeep, Zwaan, Laura, Friedman, Charles, Olson, Andrew P J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34417335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012456
_version_ 1784602345008529408
author Fernandez Branson, Carolina
Williams, Michelle
Chan, Teresa M
Graber, Mark L
Lane, Kathleen P
Grieser, Skip
Landis-Lewis, Zach
Cooke, James
Upadhyay, Divvy K
Mondoux, Shawn
Singh, Hardeep
Zwaan, Laura
Friedman, Charles
Olson, Andrew P J
author_facet Fernandez Branson, Carolina
Williams, Michelle
Chan, Teresa M
Graber, Mark L
Lane, Kathleen P
Grieser, Skip
Landis-Lewis, Zach
Cooke, James
Upadhyay, Divvy K
Mondoux, Shawn
Singh, Hardeep
Zwaan, Laura
Friedman, Charles
Olson, Andrew P J
author_sort Fernandez Branson, Carolina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Errors in reasoning are a common cause of diagnostic error. However, it is difficult to improve performance partly because providers receive little feedback on diagnostic performance. Examining means of providing consistent feedback and enabling continuous improvement may provide novel insights for diagnostic performance. METHODS: We developed a model for improving diagnostic performance through feedback using a six-step qualitative research process, including a review of existing models from within and outside of medicine, a survey, semistructured interviews with individuals working in and outside of medicine, the development of the new model, an interdisciplinary consensus meeting, and a refinement of the model. RESULTS: We applied theory and knowledge from other fields to help us conceptualise learning and comparison and translate that knowledge into an applied diagnostic context. This helped us develop a model, the Diagnosis Learning Cycle, which illustrates the need for clinicians to be given feedback about both their confidence and reasoning in a diagnosis and to be able to seamlessly compare diagnostic hypotheses and outcomes. This information would be stored in a repository to allow accessibility. Such a process would standardise diagnostic feedback and help providers learn from their practice and improve diagnostic performance. This model adds to existing models in diagnosis by including a detailed picture of diagnostic reasoning and the elements required to improve outcomes and calibration. CONCLUSION: A consistent, standard programme of feedback that includes representations of clinicians’ confidence and reasoning is a common element in non-medical fields that could be applied to medicine. Adapting this approach to diagnosis in healthcare is a promising next step. This information must be stored reliably and accessed consistently. The next steps include testing the Diagnosis Learning Cycle in clinical settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8606468
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86064682021-12-03 Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle Fernandez Branson, Carolina Williams, Michelle Chan, Teresa M Graber, Mark L Lane, Kathleen P Grieser, Skip Landis-Lewis, Zach Cooke, James Upadhyay, Divvy K Mondoux, Shawn Singh, Hardeep Zwaan, Laura Friedman, Charles Olson, Andrew P J BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: Errors in reasoning are a common cause of diagnostic error. However, it is difficult to improve performance partly because providers receive little feedback on diagnostic performance. Examining means of providing consistent feedback and enabling continuous improvement may provide novel insights for diagnostic performance. METHODS: We developed a model for improving diagnostic performance through feedback using a six-step qualitative research process, including a review of existing models from within and outside of medicine, a survey, semistructured interviews with individuals working in and outside of medicine, the development of the new model, an interdisciplinary consensus meeting, and a refinement of the model. RESULTS: We applied theory and knowledge from other fields to help us conceptualise learning and comparison and translate that knowledge into an applied diagnostic context. This helped us develop a model, the Diagnosis Learning Cycle, which illustrates the need for clinicians to be given feedback about both their confidence and reasoning in a diagnosis and to be able to seamlessly compare diagnostic hypotheses and outcomes. This information would be stored in a repository to allow accessibility. Such a process would standardise diagnostic feedback and help providers learn from their practice and improve diagnostic performance. This model adds to existing models in diagnosis by including a detailed picture of diagnostic reasoning and the elements required to improve outcomes and calibration. CONCLUSION: A consistent, standard programme of feedback that includes representations of clinicians’ confidence and reasoning is a common element in non-medical fields that could be applied to medicine. Adapting this approach to diagnosis in healthcare is a promising next step. This information must be stored reliably and accessed consistently. The next steps include testing the Diagnosis Learning Cycle in clinical settings. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12 2021-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8606468/ /pubmed/34417335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012456 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 Original Research
Fernandez Branson, Carolina
Williams, Michelle
Chan, Teresa M
Graber, Mark L
Lane, Kathleen P
Grieser, Skip
Landis-Lewis, Zach
Cooke, James
Upadhyay, Divvy K
Mondoux, Shawn
Singh, Hardeep
Zwaan, Laura
Friedman, Charles
Olson, Andrew P J
Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle
title Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle
title_full Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle
title_fullStr Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle
title_full_unstemmed Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle
title_short Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle
title_sort improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the diagnosis learning cycle
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34417335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012456
work_keys_str_mv AT fernandezbransoncarolina improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT williamsmichelle improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT chanteresam improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT grabermarkl improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT lanekathleenp improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT grieserskip improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT landislewiszach improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT cookejames improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT upadhyaydivvyk improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT mondouxshawn improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT singhhardeep improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT zwaanlaura improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT friedmancharles improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle
AT olsonandrewpj improvingdiagnosticperformancethroughfeedbackthediagnosislearningcycle