ArticleJournal of patient safety2022
Development and Usability Testing of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Common Formats to Capture Diagnostic Safety Events.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04166240 (Measuring and Improving the Safety of Test Result Follow-Up), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Measuring and Improving the Safety of Test Result Follow-Up
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Priorities for improving paediatric diagnosis: findings from a modified Delphi study.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Pediatric Diagnostic Quality Measurement in All United States Hospitals.Annals of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of ChatGPT in detecting diagnostic errors and their contributing factors: an analysis of 545 case reports of diagnostic errors.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA lack of consensus around definitions and reporting standards for diagnostic errors limits the extent to which healthcare organizations can aggregate, analyze, share, and learn from these events. In response to this problem, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) began the development of the Common Formats for Event Reporting for Diagnostic Safety Events (CFER-DS). We conducted a usability assessment of the draft CFER-DS to inform future revision and implementation.
methodsWe recruited a purposive sample of quality and safety personnel working in 8 U.S. healthcare organizations. Participants were invited to use the CFER-DS to simulate reporting for a minimum of 5 cases of diagnostic safety events and then provide written and verbal qualitative feedback. Analysis focused on participants' perceptions of content validity, ease of use, and potential for implementation.
resultsEstimated completion time was 30 to 90 minutes per event. Participants shared generally positive feedback about content coverage and item clarity but identified reporter burden as a potential concern. Participants also identified opportunities to clarify several conceptual definitions, ensure applicability across different care settings, and develop guidance to operationalize use of CFER-DS. Findings led to refinement of content and supplementary materials to facilitate implementation.
conclusionsStandardized definitions of diagnostic safety events and reporting standards for contextual information and contributing factors can help capture and analyze diagnostic safety events. In addition to usability testing, additional feedback from the field will ensure that AHRQ's CFER-DS is useful to a broad range of users for learning and safety improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.