Cargando…

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 cl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Yang, Nagendran, Myura, Kilic, Yakup, Cavlan, Dominic, Feather, Adam, Westwood, Mark, Rowland, Edward, Gutteridge, Charles, Lambiase, Pier D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34112021
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18333583211019134
_version_ 1784784298755227648
author Chen, Yang
Nagendran, Myura
Kilic, Yakup
Cavlan, Dominic
Feather, Adam
Westwood, Mark
Rowland, Edward
Gutteridge, Charles
Lambiase, Pier D
author_facet Chen, Yang
Nagendran, Myura
Kilic, Yakup
Cavlan, Dominic
Feather, Adam
Westwood, Mark
Rowland, Edward
Gutteridge, Charles
Lambiase, Pier D
author_sort Chen, Yang
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9449434
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94494342022-09-08 The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study Chen, Yang Nagendran, Myura Kilic, Yakup Cavlan, Dominic Feather, Adam Westwood, Mark Rowland, Edward Gutteridge, Charles Lambiase, Pier D Health Inf Manag Research Articles 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. SAGE Publications 2021-06-11 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9449434/ /pubmed/34112021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18333583211019134 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Research Articles
Chen, Yang
Nagendran, Myura
Kilic, Yakup
Cavlan, Dominic
Feather, Adam
Westwood, Mark
Rowland, Edward
Gutteridge, Charles
Lambiase, Pier D
The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
title The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
title_full The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
title_short The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
title_sort diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: a retrospective cohort study
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34112021
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18333583211019134
work_keys_str_mv AT chenyang thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT nagendranmyura thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT kilicyakup thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT cavlandominic thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT featheradam thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT westwoodmark thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT rowlandedward thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT gutteridgecharles thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT lambiasepierd thediagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT chenyang diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT nagendranmyura diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT kilicyakup diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT cavlandominic diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT featheradam diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT westwoodmark diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT rowlandedward diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT gutteridgecharles diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT lambiasepierd diagnosticcertaintylevelsofjuniorcliniciansaretrospectivecohortstudy