Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
An Operational Framework to Study Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments: Findings From A Consensus Panel
27
Zitationen
17
Autoren
2019
Jahr
Abstract
Objective To create an operational definition and framework to study diagnostic error in the emergency department setting. Methods We convened a 17-member multidisciplinary panel with expertise in general and pediatric emergency medicine, nursing, patient safety, informatics, cognitive psychology, social sciences, human factors, and risk management and a patient/caregiver advocate. We used a modified nominal group technique to develop a shared understanding to operationally define diagnostic errors in emergency care and modify the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s conceptual process framework to this setting. Results The expert panel defined diagnostic errors as “a divergence from evidence-based processes that increases the risk of poor outcomes despite the availability of sufficient information to provide a timely and accurate explanation of the patient’s health problem(s).” Diagnostic processes include tasks related to ( a ) acuity recognition, information and synthesis, evaluation coordination, and ( b ) communication with patients/caregivers and other diagnostic team members. The expert panel also modified the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s diagnostic process framework to incorporate influence of mode of arrival, triage level, and interventions during emergency care and underscored the importance of outcome feedback to emergency department providers to promote learning and improvement related to diagnosis. Conclusions The proposed operational definition and modified diagnostic process framework can potentially inform the development of measurement tools and strategies to study the epidemiology and interventions to improve emergency care diagnosis.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note
1997 · 14.666 Zit.
Making sense of Cronbach's alpha
2011 · 13.998 Zit.
QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
2011 · 13.748 Zit.
A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions
1981 · 11.528 Zit.
Clarifying Confusion: The Confusion Assessment Method
1990 · 5.247 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- University of Michigan–Ann Arbor(US)
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia(US)
- Lurie Children's Hospital(US)
- Children's National(US)
- John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County(US)
- Morristown Medical Center(US)
- Goryeb Children's Hospital(US)
- Center for Innovation(US)
- Baylor College of Medicine(US)
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center(US)
- New York Academy of Medicine(US)
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center(US)
- University of Cincinnati(US)
- University of Louisville(US)
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston(US)