ArticleJournal of patient safety2025
Simulated Emergency Room Sign-outs: What They Tell Us About Diagnostic Accuracy and Opportunities for Improvement.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEmergency department (ED) sign-outs provide continuity of care for patients at shift changes. However, these periods have been associated with communication breakdowns and medical errors. We explored information factors (stage-of-the-case and the explicitness of the sign-out narrative) to determine their impact on clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and confidence.
methodsClinicians from 2 academic ED sites reviewed patient vignettes sign-out narratives (N=69). Using a within-subjects experiment, the explicitness of the sign-out information (i.e., broad statement about labs versus stating each test) and the patient's stage in the diagnostic process (e.g., labs pending, treatment occurring, etc.) at the time of sign-out varied.
resultsExplicitness (i.e., expansion in description) did not significantly impact diagnostic accuracy (χ2=0.364, df=1, P=0.55) or confidence in the diagnosis (t=0.514, df=273, P=0.61). However, diagnostic accuracy (33%) and confidence in the diagnosis (48.9%) of middle-stage stimuli cases were lower compared with late-stage cases for diagnostic accuracy (60%) (χ2=19.945, df=1, P<0.01) and confidence in the diagnosis (64.1%) (t=5.404, df=273, P<0.01). These effects were found across both trainees and attending physicians, suggesting uncertainty driven by the stage of care impacts decision-making irrespective of experience, site (χ2=0.491, df=1, P=0.48), and clinician role (χ2=0.024, df=2, P=0.99).
conclusionsThe stage of the patient's case affects both clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and confidence in their diagnosis, whereas the explicitness of the information described does not. Patients in the earlier stages of care are most impacted. At sign-out, acknowledging the stage of care the patient is in may provide additional support to clinical decision-making.
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.