The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2024 Nov 20;33(12):769-779. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017037.
Safety-netting is intended to protect against harm from uncertainty in diagnosis/disease trajectory. Despite recommendations to communicate diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting, this is not always done.
To explore how and why doctors safety-netted in response to several clinical scenarios, within the broader context of exploring how doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty.
Doctors working in internal medical specialties (n=36) from five hospitals were given vignettes in a randomised order (all depicting different clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty). After reading each, they told an interviewer what they would tell a 'typical patient' in this situation. A follow-up semistructured interview explored reasons for their communication. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. We examined participants safety-netted using a content analysis approach, and they safety-netting with thematic analysis of the semistructured follow-up interviews using thematic analysis.
We observed n=78 instances of safety-netting (across 108 vignette encounters). We found significant variation in how participants safety-netted. Safety-netting was common (although not universal), but clinicians differed in the detail provided about symptoms to be alert for, and the action advised. Although many viewed safety-netting as an important tool for managing diagnostic uncertainty, diagnostic uncertainty was infrequently explicitly discussed; most advised patients to return if symptoms worsened or new 'red flag' symptoms developed, but they rarely linked this directly to the possibility of diagnostic error. Some participants expressed concerns that communicating diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting may cause anxiety for patients or could drive inappropriate reattendance/over-investigation.
Participants safety-netted variously, even when presented with identical clinical information. Although safety-netting was seen as important in avoiding diagnostic error, concerns about worrying patients may have limited discussion about diagnostic uncertainty. Research is needed to determine whether communicating diagnostic uncertainty makes safety-netting more effective at preventing harm associated with diagnostic error, and whether it causes significant patient anxiety.
安全网旨在防止因诊断/疾病轨迹的不确定性而造成的伤害。尽管有建议在安全网时沟通诊断不确定性,但并非总是如此。
在探索医生如何以及为何在几种临床情况下进行安全网的更广泛背景下,探索医生如何沟通诊断不确定性。
从五家医院的内科专业医生中(n=36)随机分配给他们一些病例(所有病例都涉及涉及诊断不确定性的不同临床情况)。阅读每个病例后,他们告诉采访者在这种情况下他们会告诉“典型患者”什么。随后的半结构化访谈探讨了他们沟通的原因。访谈进行了录音、转录和编码。我们使用内容分析方法检查了参与者的安全网使用情况,并使用主题分析对后续半结构化访谈中的他们安全网使用情况进行了主题分析。
我们观察到 n=78 次安全网(涉及 108 个病例)。我们发现参与者安全网的方式存在显著差异。安全网很常见(尽管不是普遍的),但临床医生在要警惕的症状的详细信息以及建议的行动方面存在差异。尽管许多人认为安全网是管理诊断不确定性的重要工具,但很少明确讨论诊断不确定性;大多数建议患者如果症状恶化或出现新的“红旗”症状,返回医院,但他们很少直接将此与诊断错误的可能性联系起来。一些参与者表示担心,在安全网时沟通诊断不确定性可能会引起患者的焦虑,或者可能导致不必要的再次就诊/过度检查。
即使提供了相同的临床信息,参与者的安全网也各不相同。尽管安全网在避免诊断错误方面被认为很重要,但担心患者可能会限制对诊断不确定性的讨论。需要研究确定沟通诊断不确定性是否会使安全网在预防与诊断错误相关的伤害方面更有效,以及是否会引起患者明显的焦虑。