Abstract
Objectives
Little is known about how patients perceive diagnostic uncertainty. We sought to understand how patients and care partners perceive uncertainty in an emergency or urgent care setting, where making a final diagnosis is often not possible.
Methods
We administered a survey to a nationally representative panel on patient-reported diagnostic excellence in an emergency department or urgent care setting. The survey included items specific to perceived diagnostic excellence, visit characteristics, and demographics. We analyzed responses to two open-ended questions among those who reported uncertainty in the explanation they were given. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, and compared by whether respondents agreed or disagreed the explanation they were given was true.
Results
Of the 1,116 respondents, 106 (10 %) reported that the care team was not certain in the explanation of their health problem. Five themes were identified in the open-ended responses: poor communication (73 %), uncertainty made transparent (10 %), incorrect information provided (9 %), inadequate testing equipment (4 %), and unable to determine (4 %). Of the respondents who reported uncertainty, 21 % (n=22/106) reported the explanation of their problem given was not true.
Conclusions
The findings of this analysis suggest that the majority of patients and their care partners do not equate uncertainty with a wrong explanation of their health problem, and that poor communication was the most commonly cited reason for perceived uncertainty.
Funding source: Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: 9904
Acknowledgments
The authorship team wishes to acknowledge Drs. Vadim Dukhanin and Kathryn M. McDonald for their role in PRIME-ED instrument development.
-
Research ethics: The research related to human subjects has complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies, and in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the Johns Hopkins Medicine IRB, IRB00228732.
-
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: This work was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation under grant #9904 (Development of a Patient-Reported Measure Set of Diagnostic Excellence). The funders did not have a role in the research design, implementation, interpretation, or writing or submitting the report.
References
1. Dahm, MR, Cattanach, W, Williams, M, Basseal, JM, Gleason, K, Crock, C. Communication of diagnostic uncertainty in primary care and its impact on patient experience: an integrative systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2022;38:738–54.10.1007/s11606-022-07768-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
2. Poluch, M, Feingold-Link, J, Ankam, N, Kilpatrick, J, Cameron, K, Chandra, S, et al.. I don’t have a diagnosis for you: preparing medical students to communicate diagnostic uncertainty in the emergency department. MedEdPORTAL 2022;18:11218. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11218.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Edlow, JA, Pronovost, PJ. Misdiagnosis in the emergency department: time for a system solution. JAMA 2023;329:631–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.0577.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Hussain, F, Cooper, A, Carson-Stevens, A, Donaldson, L, Hibbert, P, Hughes, T, et al.. Diagnostic error in the emergency department: learning from national patient safety incident report analysis. BMC Emerg Med 2019;19:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-019-0289-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Medford-Davis, L, Park, E, Shlamovitz, G, Suliburk, J, Meyer, AN, Singh, H. Diagnostic errors related to acute abdominal pain in the emergency department. Emerg Med J 2016;33:253–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2015-204754.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Vaillancourt, S, Cullen, JD, Dainty, KN, Inrig, T, Laupacis, A, Linton, D, et al.. PROM-ED: development and testing of a patient-reported outcome measure for emergency department patients who are discharged home. Ann Emerg Med 2020;76:219–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.12.023.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Gleason, KT, Peterson, S, Dennison Himmelfarb, CR, Villanueva, M, Wynn, T, Bondal, P, et al.. Feasibility of patient-reported diagnostic errors following emergency department discharge: a pilot study. Diagnosis 2021;8:187–92. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2020-0014.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
8. Omron, R, Kotwal, S, Garibaldi, BT, Newman-Toker, DE. The diagnostic performance feedback “calibration gap”: why clinical experience alone is not enough to prevent serious diagnostic errors. AEM Educ Train 2018;2:339–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10119.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Dahm, MR, Crock, C. Understanding and communicating uncertainty in achieving diagnostic excellence. JAMA 2022;327:1127–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.2141.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Heritage, J, McArthur, A. The diagnostic moment: a study in US primary care. Soc Sci Med 2019;228:262–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.03.022.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Bhise, V, Meyer, AND, Menon, S, Singhal, G, Street, RL, Giardina, TD, et al.. Patient perspectives on how physicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty: an experimental vignette study. Int J Qual Health Care 2018;30:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzx170.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Meyer, AND, Giardina, TD, Khawaja, L, Singh, H. Patient and clinician experiences of uncertainty in the diagnostic process: current understanding and future directions. Patient Educ Counsel 2021;104:2606–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Rising, KL, Cameron, KA, Salzman, DH, Papanagnou, D, Doty, AMB, Piserchia, K, et al.. Communicating diagnostic uncertainty at emergency department discharge: a simulation-based mastery learning randomized trial. Acad Med 2023;98:384–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004993.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- The physical exam and telehealth: between past and future
- Review
- Features and functions of decision support systems for appropriate diagnostic imaging: a scoping review
- Mini Reviews
- The PRIDx framework to engage payers in reducing diagnostic errors in healthcare
- Tumor heterogeneity: how could we use it to achieve better clinical outcomes?
- Original Articles
- Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy among intensive care unit clinicians – an observational study
- Prevalence of atypical presentations among outpatients and associations with diagnostic error
- Preferred language and diagnostic errors in the pediatric emergency department
- Diurnal temperature variation and the implications for diagnosis and infectious disease screening: a population-based study
- What’s going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process
- Assessing clinical reasoning skills following a virtual patient dizziness curriculum
- Interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein for optimal immunometabolic profiling of the lifestyle-related cardiorenal risk
- Effect of syringe underfilling on the quality of venous blood gas analysis
- Short Communications
- How do patients and care partners describe diagnostic uncertainty in an emergency department or urgent care setting?
- Enhancing clinical reasoning with Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer: a practical guide
- Letters to the Editor
- How to overcome hurdles in holding mortality and morbidity conferences on diagnostic error cases in Japan
- Medical history-taking by highlighting the time course: PODCAST approach
- Journal Reputation Factor
- Case Report
- Pre-analytical errors in coagulation testing: a case series
- Acknowledgement
- Acknowledgement
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- The physical exam and telehealth: between past and future
- Review
- Features and functions of decision support systems for appropriate diagnostic imaging: a scoping review
- Mini Reviews
- The PRIDx framework to engage payers in reducing diagnostic errors in healthcare
- Tumor heterogeneity: how could we use it to achieve better clinical outcomes?
- Original Articles
- Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy among intensive care unit clinicians – an observational study
- Prevalence of atypical presentations among outpatients and associations with diagnostic error
- Preferred language and diagnostic errors in the pediatric emergency department
- Diurnal temperature variation and the implications for diagnosis and infectious disease screening: a population-based study
- What’s going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process
- Assessing clinical reasoning skills following a virtual patient dizziness curriculum
- Interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein for optimal immunometabolic profiling of the lifestyle-related cardiorenal risk
- Effect of syringe underfilling on the quality of venous blood gas analysis
- Short Communications
- How do patients and care partners describe diagnostic uncertainty in an emergency department or urgent care setting?
- Enhancing clinical reasoning with Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer: a practical guide
- Letters to the Editor
- How to overcome hurdles in holding mortality and morbidity conferences on diagnostic error cases in Japan
- Medical history-taking by highlighting the time course: PODCAST approach
- Journal Reputation Factor
- Case Report
- Pre-analytical errors in coagulation testing: a case series
- Acknowledgement
- Acknowledgement