Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: a randomized experiment

Introduction Wrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self-monitoring? Methods Advanced medical students (N = 90) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to complete six computer-based patient cases: group 1 (prompt) was instructed to write down all diagnoses they considered while acquiring diagnostic test results and to finally rank them. Groups 2 and 3 received the same instruction plus a list of 17 differential diagnoses for the chief complaint of the patient. For half of the cases, the DDXC contained the correct diagnosis (DDXC+), and for the other half, it did not (DDXC−; counterbalanced). Group 4 (control) was only instructed to indicate their final diagnosis. Mixed-effects models were used to analyse results. Results Students using a DDXC that contained the correct diagnosis had better diagnostic accuracy, mean (standard deviation), 0.75 (0.44), compared to controls without a checklist, 0.49 (0.50), P < 0.001, but those using a DDXC that did not contain the correct diagnosis did slightly worse, 0.43 (0.50), P = 0.602. The number and relevance of diagnostic tests acquired were not affected by condition, nor was self-monitoring. However, participants spent more time on a case in the DDXC−, 4:20 min (2:36), P ≤ 0.001, and DDXC+ condition, 3:52 min (2:09), than in the control condition, 2:59 min (1:44), P ≤ 0.001. Discussion Being provided a list of possible diagnoses improves diagnostic accuracy compared with a prompt to create a differential diagnosis list, if the provided list contains the correct diagnosis. However, being provided a diagnosis list without the correct diagnosis did not improve and might have slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy. Interventions neither affected information gathering nor self-monitoring

Improving patient safety through better teamwork: How effective are different methods of simulation debriefing? Protocol for a pragmatic, prospective and randomised study

INTRODUCTION Medical errors have an incidence of 9% and may lead to worse patient outcome. Teamwork training has the capacity to significantly reduce medical errors and therefore improve patient outcome. One common framework for teamwork training is crisis resource management, adapted from aviation and usually trained in simulation settings. Debriefing after simulation is thought to be crucial to learning teamwork-related concepts and behaviours but it remains unclear how best to debrief these aspects. Furthermore, teamwork-training sessions and studies examining education effects on undergraduates are rare. The study aims to evaluate the effects of two teamwork-focused debriefings on team performance after an extensive medical student teamwork training. METHODS AND ANALYSES A prospective experimental study has been designed to compare a well-established three-phase debriefing method (gather-analyse-summarise; the GAS method) to a newly developed and more structured debriefing approach that extends the GAS method with TeamTAG (teamwork techniques analysis grid). TeamTAG is a cognitive aid listing preselected teamwork principles and descriptions of behavioural anchors that serve as observable patterns of teamwork and is supposed to help structure teamwork-focused debriefing. Both debriefing methods will be tested during an emergency room teamwork-training simulation comprising six emergency medicine cases faced by 35 final-year medical students in teams of five. Teams will be randomised into the two debriefing conditions. Team performance during simulation and the number of principles discussed during debriefing will be evaluated. Learning opportunities, helpfulness and feasibility will be rated by participants and instructors. Analyses will include descriptive, inferential and explorative statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study protocol was approved by the institutional office for data protection and the ethics committee of Charité Medical School Berlin and registered under EA2/172/16. All students will participate voluntarily and will sign an informed consent after receiving written and oral information about the study. Results will be published