ArticleFrontiers in health services2024
Patient-informed exploration of the aftermath of a diagnostic problem or mistake based on results of a national survey.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The potential for patient-reported data and narratives to improve quality during emergency department boarding.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Exploring sociodemographic disparities in diagnostic problems and mistakes in the quest for diagnostic equity: insights from a national survey of patient experiences.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.