Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep 24;11(9):e044194.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044194.

Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol

Affiliations

Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol

Michelle Daniel et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies.

Methods and analysis: This study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human-human and human-system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model.

Ethics and dissemination: The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings.

Keywords: accident & emergency medicine; health & safety; paediatric A&E and ambulatory care; qualitative research; risk management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Improving Diagnosis in Emergency and Acute Care—Learning Laboratory (IDEA-LL) Aims. ED, emergency department; EHR, electronic health record.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Singh H. Editorial: helping health care organizations to define diagnostic errors as missed opportunities in diagnosis. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2014;40:99–AP1. 10.1016/S1553-7250(14)40012-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Emergency department visits, 2017. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm [Accessed 27 Jul 2020].
    1. Ball J, Balogh E, Miller BT, eds. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Improving Diagnosis in Health Care (2015) Consensus Study Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.
    1. Ilgen JS, Eva KW, Regehr G. What's in a label? Is diagnosis the start or the end of clinical reasoning? J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:435–7. 10.1007/s11606-016-3592-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, et al. . Clinical reasoning assessment methods: a scoping review and practical guidance. Acad Med 2019;94:902–12. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources