Cited by 25Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsEmergency and Acute Care Studies

What Interventions Could Reduce Diagnostic Error in Emergency Departments? A Review of Evidence, Practice and Consumer Perspectives

Wright, Breanna, Faulkner, Nicholas, Bragge, Peter, Graber, Mark·2019·Diagnosis

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to synthesise review evidence, practice and patient perspectives on interventions to reduce diagnostic error in emergency departments (EDs). A rapid review methodology identified nine systematic reviews for inclusion. Six practice interviews were conducted to identify local contextual insights and implementation considerations. Finally, patient perspectives were explored through a citizen panel with 11 participants. The rapid review found evidence for the following interventions: second opinion, decision aids, guided reflection and education. Practitioners suggested three of the four interventions from the academic review: second opinion, decision aids and education. Practitioners suggested four additional interventions: improving teamwork, engaging patients, learning from mistakes and scheduled test follow-up. Patients most favoured interventions that improved communication through education and patient engagement, while also suggesting that implementation of state-wide standards to reduce variability in care and sufficient staffing are important to address diagnostic errors. Triangulating these three perspectives on the evidence allows for the intersections to be highlighted and demonstrates the usefulness of incorporating practitioner reflections and patient values in developing potential interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/dx-2018-0104

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Improving information transparency, such as providing easy access to medical information for patients, can bridge the information gap and encourage engagement.

    “In addition to strengthening the clinician-patient relationship, improving information transparency [368,369], such as providing easy access to medical information for patients [370], can bridge the information gap and encourage engagement.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wright, B., Faulkner, N., Bragge, P., & Graber, M.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Wright, Breanna
Venue
Diagnosis
Published
2019-05-22
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
325-334
ISSN
  • 2194-8011 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-802X
OpenAlex
W2946249118
Cited by
25
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
diagnostic errors, emergency department, second opinion, decision aids, guided reflection, medical education, teamwork, patient engagement, learning from mistakes, patient perspectives, implementation considerations, staffing, quality standards
MeSH terms
Communication, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnostic Errors, Emergency Medicine, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Patient Care Team, Patient Participation, Referral and Consultation, Practice Guidelines as Topic, General Practitioners, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review