Suppr超能文献

针对减少诊断错误的干预措施:系统评价。

Interventions targeted at reducing diagnostic error: systematic review.

机构信息

School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Apr;31(4):297-307. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012704. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Incorrect, delayed and missed diagnoses can contribute to significant adverse health outcomes. Intervention options have proliferated in recent years necessitating an update to McDonald 's 2013 systematic review of interventions to reduce diagnostic error.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe the types of published interventions for reducing diagnostic error that have been evaluated in terms of an objective patient outcome; (2) to assess the risk of bias in the included interventions and perform a sensitivity analysis of the findings; and (3) to determine the effectiveness of included interventions with respect to their intervention type.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019. Publications were included if they delivered patient-related outcomes relating to diagnostic accuracy, management outcomes and/or morbidity and mortality. The interventions in each included study were categorised and analysed using the six intervention types described by McDonald (technique, technology-based system interventions, educational interventions, personnel changes, structured process changes and additional review methods).

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen of the 20 included studies (including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) demonstrated improvements in objective patient outcomes following the intervention. These three RCTs individually evaluated a technique-based intervention, a technology-based system intervention and a structured process change. The inclusion or exclusion of two higher risk of bias studies did not affect the results.

CONCLUSION

Technique-based interventions, technology-based system interventions and structured process changes have been the most studied interventions over the time period of this review and hence are seen to be effective in reducing diagnostic error. However, more high-quality RCTs are required, particularly evaluating educational interventions and personnel changes, to demonstrate the value of these interventions in diverse settings.

摘要

背景

不正确、延迟和漏诊会导致严重的不良健康后果。近年来,干预措施大量涌现,因此需要更新麦当劳 2013 年关于减少诊断错误的干预措施的系统评价。

目的

(1)描述已评估客观患者结局的减少诊断错误的已发表干预措施的类型;(2)评估纳入干预措施的偏倚风险,并对研究结果进行敏感性分析;(3)根据干预类型确定纳入干预措施的有效性。

方法

从 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日,检索 MEDLINE、CINAHL 和 Cochrane 系统评价数据库。如果发表的文献提供了与诊断准确性、管理结果和/或发病率和死亡率相关的患者结局,则纳入研究。对每个纳入研究中的干预措施进行分类和分析,使用 McDonald 描述的六种干预类型(技术、基于技术的系统干预、教育干预、人员变更、结构化流程变更和额外审查方法)。

结果

有 20 项研究符合纳入标准。20 项纳入研究中的 18 项(包括 3 项随机对照试验)在干预后显示出客观患者结局的改善。这三项 RCT 分别评估了一种基于技术的干预、一种基于技术的系统干预和一种结构化的流程变更。纳入或排除两项高偏倚风险的研究并不影响结果。

结论

在本综述的时间段内,基于技术的干预、基于技术的系统干预和结构化流程变更一直是研究最多的干预措施,因此被认为可以有效减少诊断错误。然而,需要更多高质量的 RCT,特别是评估教育干预和人员变更的 RCT,以证明这些干预措施在不同环境中的价值。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验