ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2026
A Safety-II approach to learn from practice variation in the diagnostic process in the emergency department: an action research study.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe focus on improving patient safety has mainly been by learning from errors and near misses (Safety-I). We applied a novel Safety-II approach to identify and learn from practice variations in the diagnostic process in the emergency department (ED), and subsequently design and implement practice changes.
methodsIn this single-center study, we used action research (cycles of micro-experiments to study and improve processes with active stakeholder involvement) in the diagnostic process. We used three subsequent observation cycles of the following six steps: observations, gathering of follow-up data, analyses, a co-creation session with involved stakeholders, sharing of best practices, and updating the observation form. The observations and analyses focused on identifying practice variation in everyday practice rather than on what went right or wrong. During co-creation sessions, stakeholders discussed whether practice variations were reflective of possible improvements in the diagnostic process. Promising best practices were identified, and subsequently implemented as practice changes aiming to improve the diagnostic process. Implemented practice changes were evaluated in subsequent cycles.
resultsForty diagnostic processes were observed. We identified practice variations that reflected the resilience and adaptability of clinicians, as well as variations revealing opportunities to improve the diagnostic process. Five identified best practices were implemented as practice changes: a template for the documentation of ED preannouncements, a document with relevant digital information resources for residents, face-to-face supervision by Internal Medicine consultants during office hours, blood sampling at triage, and adding lipase to the standard ED blood tests. These changes were well-received by stakeholders, also shown by an adoption-rate of 67-100 % of observed cases after implementation.
conclusionsA Safety-II approach with action research and direct observations of the diagnostic process in the ED can be successfully applied to identify and learn from practice variation, and can lead to well-received practice changes.
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.