TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility of a rapid diagnosis discussion tool for reducing misdiagnosis of patients presenting to emergency departments with abdominal pain
AU - Faulkner, Nicholas
AU - Buntine, Paul
AU - Wright, Breanna
AU - Leach, Deborah
AU - Bragge, Peter
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded by the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority (VMIA) (VMIA‐MIRI 2016). We are grateful for the support and contributions of Maria Mota, Rachel Lennon, Gabby Fennessy and Joseph Miller. We are also grateful for the support of the Directors of the Emergency Departments at Box Hill Hospital, Angliss Hospital and Maroondah Hospital and for the enthusiastic participation by clinicians at Box Hill Hospital during the pilot period. Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Emergency Medicine Australasia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - Objectives: Providing accurate and timely diagnoses is challenging in ED settings. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a short, structured rapid diagnosis discussion (RaDD) between a patient's initial doctor and a second doctor for patients presenting to ED with abdominal pain. Methods: Controlled pre-post, mixed-methods pilot study in a metropolitan hospital network in Melbourne, Australia. Comparisons were made between an ED using RaDD for a 1-month period (n = 155) and two control EDs within the same hospital network (n = 2227) using standard practices. A short survey of 27 clinicians was also undertaken. Results: Provisional diagnoses changed in 24.7% (95% confidence interval 19.0, 30.4) of all cases for which a RaDD case report sheet was completed, and clinicians' confidence in their decision-making was significantly higher when using RaDD (r = 0.27). RaDD significantly increased the likelihood that patients would be sent to the short stay unit and have a blood test ordered, and significantly reduced the likelihood that patients would be discharged home from the ED or leave at their own risk. Usage of the RaDD tool was low (25.2% of eligible cases), and qualitative feedback indicated that time limitations inhibited uptake. Conclusions: RaDD encouraged clinicians to take a more cautious, risk-averse approach to care and improved confidence in their diagnostic decisions. However, cost effectiveness of these outcomes and possible implementation barriers need to be further considered in subsequent studies.
AB - Objectives: Providing accurate and timely diagnoses is challenging in ED settings. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a short, structured rapid diagnosis discussion (RaDD) between a patient's initial doctor and a second doctor for patients presenting to ED with abdominal pain. Methods: Controlled pre-post, mixed-methods pilot study in a metropolitan hospital network in Melbourne, Australia. Comparisons were made between an ED using RaDD for a 1-month period (n = 155) and two control EDs within the same hospital network (n = 2227) using standard practices. A short survey of 27 clinicians was also undertaken. Results: Provisional diagnoses changed in 24.7% (95% confidence interval 19.0, 30.4) of all cases for which a RaDD case report sheet was completed, and clinicians' confidence in their decision-making was significantly higher when using RaDD (r = 0.27). RaDD significantly increased the likelihood that patients would be sent to the short stay unit and have a blood test ordered, and significantly reduced the likelihood that patients would be discharged home from the ED or leave at their own risk. Usage of the RaDD tool was low (25.2% of eligible cases), and qualitative feedback indicated that time limitations inhibited uptake. Conclusions: RaDD encouraged clinicians to take a more cautious, risk-averse approach to care and improved confidence in their diagnostic decisions. However, cost effectiveness of these outcomes and possible implementation barriers need to be further considered in subsequent studies.
KW - cognitive bias
KW - emergency departments
KW - misdiagnosis
KW - structured discussion
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85151987153
U2 - 10.1111/1742-6723.14199
DO - 10.1111/1742-6723.14199
M3 - Article
C2 - 37015347
AN - SCOPUS:85151987153
SN - 1742-6731
VL - 35
SP - 664
EP - 671
JO - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
JF - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
IS - 4
ER -