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

Courtney W Mangus; Tyler G James; Sarah J Parker; Elizabeth Duffy; P Paul Chandanabhumma; Caitlin M Cassady; Fernanda Bellolio; Kalyan S Pasupathy; Milisa Manojlovich; Hardeep Singh; Prashant Mahajan

doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.03.003

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

Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024 Mar 12:S1553-7250(24)00072-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.03.003. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Courtney W Mangus, Tyler G James, Sarah J Parker, Elizabeth Duffy, P Paul Chandanabhumma, Caitlin M Cassady, Fernanda Bellolio, Kalyan S Pasupathy, Milisa Manojlovich, Hardeep Singh, Prashant Mahajan

PMID: 38643047
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.03.003

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.