Cargando…
Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment
INTRODUCTION: Wrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self‐monitoring? METHODS...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34291481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14596 |
_version_ | 1784748931099394048 |
---|---|
author | Kämmer, Juliane E. Schauber, Stefan K. Hautz, Stefanie C. Stroben, Fabian Hautz, Wolf E. |
author_facet | Kämmer, Juliane E. Schauber, Stefan K. Hautz, Stefanie C. Stroben, Fabian Hautz, Wolf E. |
author_sort | Kämmer, Juliane E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Wrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self‐monitoring? METHODS: Advanced medical students (N = 90) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to complete six computer‐based patient cases: group 1 (prompt) was instructed to write down all diagnoses they considered while acquiring diagnostic test results and to finally rank them. Groups 2 and 3 received the same instruction plus a list of 17 differential diagnoses for the chief complaint of the patient. For half of the cases, the DDXC contained the correct diagnosis (DDXC+), and for the other half, it did not (DDXC−; counterbalanced). Group 4 (control) was only instructed to indicate their final diagnosis. Mixed‐effects models were used to analyse results. RESULTS: Students using a DDXC that contained the correct diagnosis had better diagnostic accuracy, mean (standard deviation), 0.75 (0.44), compared to controls without a checklist, 0.49 (0.50), P < 0.001, but those using a DDXC that did not contain the correct diagnosis did slightly worse, 0.43 (0.50), P = 0.602. The number and relevance of diagnostic tests acquired were not affected by condition, nor was self‐monitoring. However, participants spent more time on a case in the DDXC−, 4:20 min (2:36), P ≤ 0.001, and DDXC+ condition, 3:52 min (2:09), than in the control condition, 2:59 min (1:44), P ≤ 0.001. DISCUSSION: Being provided a list of possible diagnoses improves diagnostic accuracy compared with a prompt to create a differential diagnosis list, if the provided list contains the correct diagnosis. However, being provided a diagnosis list without the correct diagnosis did not improve and might have slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy. Interventions neither affected information gathering nor self‐monitoring. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9290564 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92905642022-07-20 Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment Kämmer, Juliane E. Schauber, Stefan K. Hautz, Stefanie C. Stroben, Fabian Hautz, Wolf E. Med Educ Clinical Reasoning INTRODUCTION: Wrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self‐monitoring? METHODS: Advanced medical students (N = 90) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to complete six computer‐based patient cases: group 1 (prompt) was instructed to write down all diagnoses they considered while acquiring diagnostic test results and to finally rank them. Groups 2 and 3 received the same instruction plus a list of 17 differential diagnoses for the chief complaint of the patient. For half of the cases, the DDXC contained the correct diagnosis (DDXC+), and for the other half, it did not (DDXC−; counterbalanced). Group 4 (control) was only instructed to indicate their final diagnosis. Mixed‐effects models were used to analyse results. RESULTS: Students using a DDXC that contained the correct diagnosis had better diagnostic accuracy, mean (standard deviation), 0.75 (0.44), compared to controls without a checklist, 0.49 (0.50), P < 0.001, but those using a DDXC that did not contain the correct diagnosis did slightly worse, 0.43 (0.50), P = 0.602. The number and relevance of diagnostic tests acquired were not affected by condition, nor was self‐monitoring. However, participants spent more time on a case in the DDXC−, 4:20 min (2:36), P ≤ 0.001, and DDXC+ condition, 3:52 min (2:09), than in the control condition, 2:59 min (1:44), P ≤ 0.001. DISCUSSION: Being provided a list of possible diagnoses improves diagnostic accuracy compared with a prompt to create a differential diagnosis list, if the provided list contains the correct diagnosis. However, being provided a diagnosis list without the correct diagnosis did not improve and might have slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy. Interventions neither affected information gathering nor self‐monitoring. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-08-18 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9290564/ /pubmed/34291481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14596 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Medical Education published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Reasoning Kämmer, Juliane E. Schauber, Stefan K. Hautz, Stefanie C. Stroben, Fabian Hautz, Wolf E. Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment |
title | Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment |
title_full | Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment |
title_fullStr | Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment |
title_full_unstemmed | Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment |
title_short | Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment |
title_sort | differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: a randomised experiment |
topic | Clinical Reasoning |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34291481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14596 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kammerjulianee differentialdiagnosischecklistsreducediagnosticerrordifferentiallyarandomisedexperiment AT schauberstefank differentialdiagnosischecklistsreducediagnosticerrordifferentiallyarandomisedexperiment AT hautzstefaniec differentialdiagnosischecklistsreducediagnosticerrordifferentiallyarandomisedexperiment AT strobenfabian differentialdiagnosischecklistsreducediagnosticerrordifferentiallyarandomisedexperiment AT hautzwolfe differentialdiagnosischecklistsreducediagnosticerrordifferentiallyarandomisedexperiment |