Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39670169›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2024

Patient-informed exploration of the aftermath of a diagnostic problem or mistake based on results of a national survey.

Kelly T Gleason, Christina T Yuan, Helen Haskell, Michelle A Anderson, Jane A Evered, Kathryn M McDonald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kelly T GleasonSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Christina T YuanHealth Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Helen HaskellMothers Against Medical Error, Columbia, SC, United States.
Michelle A AndersonCommunity Advisory Panel, New England Precision Medicine Consortium, All of Us Research Program, Boston, MA, United States.
Jane A EveredDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Kathryn M McDonaldSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence-Pursuing Scalable System-Level Diagnostic Quality, Value and Equity by Applying Safety Science to Emergency Department DiagnosisR18HS029350 · AHRQ · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCDONALD, KATHRYN MACK, NEWMAN-TOKER, DAVID · 2022 to 2025
$4.0M
Patient-Reported Diagnostic Safety Events in Ambulatory Care Settings: A National Survey of Systemic Influences, Disparities and Persisting ConsequencesR01HS029789 · AHRQ · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MARK J SCHLESINGER · 2023 to 2026
$2.0M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS029789AHRQ HHS R18 HS029350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the prevalence and devastating consequences of diagnostic breakdowns, there have been minimal efforts to systematically collect patient insight into diagnostic problems and mistakes. Collaborating with patient advocates to guide how patient-derived insights are interpreted and used is a critical, yet often overlooked, approach to identifying actionable solutions that speak to patients' priorities. Objective: We collaborated with patient advocate co-authors to guide our understanding of findings from a mixed methods survey on diagnostic problems and mistakes, and report implications for patient engagement at three levels of action: (1) individual level before, during, after encounters ( Methods: Our research team applied narrative elicitation methods to conduct a novel survey about Americans' diagnostic experiences in a national, population-based survey. We shared early results with patient co-authors who highlighted the importance of further exploring how health systems and clinicians address the aftermath of diagnostic mishaps. Based on their input, we summarized the quantitative and qualitative survey results about the aftermath and worked with our patient co-authors to explore how findings might inform actionable next steps, including efforts to catalyze patient action, quality improvement efforts, and policy reform. Results: Of the 3,684 survey respondents, about a third (33.0%, 1,216/3,684) of screened households reported diagnostic problems and mistakes in the past four years involving either themselves (18.9%, 697/3,684) or someone close to them (14.1%, 519/3,684). In the aftermath of a diagnostic mishap, over a third reported that someone in the healthcare setting where the mistake occurred acknowledged the mistake (35.9%, 432/1,204). In qualitative findings, reports that the health system "did nothing" surfacing as the most common response. Patient co-authors confirmed the results resonated with their experiences and emphasized the need for health systems to take accountability when a mishap occurs and to take follow-up actions to prevent future mishaps. Discussion: Patients and care partners not only want and deserve acknowledgement of diagnostic problems or mistakes in their own care, they also want assurance that steps are being taken to prevent similar events from happening to others. Across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of action, working with patients to understand and act on contributors to diagnostic breakdowns is aligned with high-reliability organizing principles.

Indexed as

diagnostic safetyfamily engagementpatient engagementpatient safetyquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID39670169
PMCPMC11634834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.