Suppr超能文献

急诊诊断安全改进的一线医护人员和患者观点:一项定性研究。

Frontline Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Improving Diagnostic Safety in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study.

出版信息

Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024 Jul;50(7):480-491. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.03.003. Epub 2024 Mar 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Few studies have described the insights of frontline health care providers and patients on how the diagnostic process can be improved in the emergency department (ED), a setting at high risk for diagnostic errors. The authors aimed to identify the perspectives of providers and patients on the diagnostic process and identify potential interventions to improve diagnostic safety.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 ED physicians, 15 ED nurses, and 9 patients/caregivers at two separate health systems. Interview questions were guided by the ED-Adapted National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Diagnostic Process Framework and explored participant perspectives on the ED diagnostic process, identified vulnerabilities, and solicited interventions to improve diagnostic safety. The authors performed qualitative thematic analysis on transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

The research team categorized vulnerabilities in the diagnostic process and intervention opportunities based on the ED-Adapted Framework into five domains: (1) team dynamics and communication (for example, suboptimal communication between referring physicians and the ED team); (2) information gathering related to patient presentation (for example, obtaining the history from the patients or their caregivers; (3) ED organization, system, and processes (for example, staff schedules and handoffs); (4) patient education and self-management (for example, patient education at discharge from the ED); and (5) electronic health record and patient portal use (for example, automatic release of test results into the patient portal). The authors identified 33 potential interventions, of which 17 were provider focused and 16 were patient focused.

CONCLUSION

Frontline providers and patients identified several vulnerabilities and potential interventions to improve ED diagnostic safety. Refining, implementing, and evaluating the efficacy of these interventions are required.

摘要

背景

很少有研究描述过一线医护人员和患者对于如何改进急诊科(ED)诊断流程的见解,而急诊科是诊断错误风险较高的地方。作者旨在确定医护人员和患者对诊断过程的看法,并确定潜在的干预措施以提高诊断安全性。

方法

在两个不同的医疗系统中,对 10 名急诊科医生、15 名急诊科护士和 9 名患者/护理人员进行了半结构化访谈。访谈问题由 ED 改编的美国国家科学院、工程院和医学研究院诊断过程框架指导,探讨了参与者对 ED 诊断过程的看法、确定的脆弱性以及改善诊断安全性的干预措施。研究人员对转录的访谈进行了定性主题分析。

结果

研究团队根据 ED 改编框架将诊断过程中的脆弱性和干预机会分为五个领域:(1)团队动态和沟通(例如,转诊医生和 ED 团队之间沟通不畅);(2)与患者表现相关的信息收集(例如,从患者或其护理人员那里获取病史);(3)ED 组织、系统和流程(例如,员工排班和交接班);(4)患者教育和自我管理(例如,ED 出院时的患者教育);以及(5)电子健康记录和患者门户使用(例如,将测试结果自动发布到患者门户)。研究人员确定了 33 种潜在的干预措施,其中 17 种是针对提供者的,16 种是针对患者的。

结论

一线医护人员和患者确定了一些提高 ED 诊断安全性的脆弱性和潜在干预措施。需要对这些干预措施进行改进、实施和评估其效果。

相似文献

1
Frontline Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Improving Diagnostic Safety in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024 Jul;50(7):480-491. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.03.003. Epub 2024 Mar 12.
2
Refining a Framework to Enhance Communication in the Emergency Department During the Diagnostic Process: An eDelphi Approach.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024 May;50(5):348-356. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.01.013. Epub 2024 Jan 30.
5
Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol.
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 24;11(9):e044194. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044194.
8
Emergency department provider perspectives on elder abuse and development of a novel ED-based multidisciplinary intervention team.
Emerg Med J. 2018 Oct;35(10):600-607. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207303. Epub 2018 Aug 9.
10
Coordinating a Team Response to Behavioral Emergencies in the Emergency Department: A Simulation-Enhanced Interprofessional Curriculum.
West J Emerg Med. 2015 Nov;16(6):859-65. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.8.26220. Epub 2015 Oct 22.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Standardized evaluation of hand-off documentation of ICU boarders in the emergency department.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2023 Sep 20;4(5):e13039. doi: 10.1002/emp2.13039. eCollection 2023 Oct.
2
Improving Emergency Medicine Clinician Awareness of Prehospital-Administered Medications.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2024;28(3):506-512. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2023.2238815. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
3
A Video-Based Study of Emergency Medical Services Handoffs to a Pediatric Emergency Department.
J Emerg Med. 2023 Aug;65(2):e101-e110. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.04.011. Epub 2023 Apr 23.
6
Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Diagnostic Errors in the Acute Care Setting.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2023 Feb;49(2):89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2022.11.009. Epub 2022 Nov 24.
7
Operating room design using agent-based simulation to reduce room obstructions.
Health Care Manag Sci. 2023 Jun;26(2):261-278. doi: 10.1007/s10729-022-09622-3. Epub 2022 Dec 19.
8
Overcrowding in Emergency Department: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions-A Narrative Review.
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Aug 25;10(9):1625. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10091625.
9
The impact of medical scribes on emergency physician diagnostic testing and diagnosis charting.
Diagnosis (Berl). 2021 Oct 25;9(2):236-240. doi: 10.1515/dx-2021-0099.
10
Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol.
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 24;11(9):e044194. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044194.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验