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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kämmer, Juliane E., Schauber, Stefan K., Hautz, Stefanie C., Stroben, Fabian, Hautz, Wolf E.
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