PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jeremy C Wyatt

Publications and source records attributed to Jeremy C Wyatt.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Diagnostic omission errors in acute paediatric practice: impact of a reminder system on decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is a significant problem in specialities characterised by diagnostic uncertainty such as primary care, emergency medicine and paediatrics. Despite wide-spread availability, computerised aids have not been shown to significantly improve diagnostic decision-making in a real world environment, mainly due to the need for prolonged system consultation. In this study performed in the clinical environment, we used a Web-based diagnostic reminder system that provided rapid advice with free text data entry to examine its impact on clinicians' decisions in an acute paediatric setting during assessments characterised by diagnostic uncertainty. METHODS: Junior doctors working over a 5-month period at four paediatric ambulatory units consulted the Web-based diagnostic aid when they felt the need for diagnostic assistance. Subjects recorded their clinical decisions for patients (differential diagnosis, test-ordering and treatment) before and after system consultation. An expert panel of four paediatric consultants independently suggested clinically significant decisions indicating an appropriate and 'safe' assessment. The primary outcome measure was change in the proportion of 'unsafe' workups by subjects during patient assessment. A more sensitive evaluation of impact was performed using specific validated quality scores. Adverse effects of consultation on decision-making, as well as the additional time spent on system use were examined. RESULTS: Subjects attempted to access the diagnostic aid on 595 occasions during the study period (8.6% of all medical assessments); subjects examined diagnostic advice only in 177 episodes (30%). Senior House Officers at hospitals with greater number of available computer workstations in the clinical area were most likely to consult the system, especially out of working hours. Diagnostic workups construed as 'unsafe' occurred in 47/104 cases (45.2%); this reduced to 32.7% following system consultation (McNemar test, p < 0.001). Subjects' mean 'unsafe' workups per case decreased from 0.49 to 0.32 (p < 0.001). System advice prompted the clinician to consider the 'correct' diagnosis (established at discharge) during initial assessment in 3/104 patients. Median usage time was 1 min 38 sec (IQR 50 sec-3 min 21 sec). Despite a modest increase in the number of diagnostic possibilities entertained by the clinician, no adverse effects were demonstrable on patient management following system use. Numerous technical barriers prevented subjects from accessing the diagnostic aid in the majority of eligible patients in whom they sought diagnostic assistance. CONCLUSION: We have shown that junior doctors used a Web-based diagnostic reminder system during acute paediatric assessments to significantly improve the quality of their diagnostic workup and reduce diagnostic omission errors. These benefits were achieved without any adverse effects on patient management following a quick consultation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Assessment of the potential impact of a reminder system on the reduction of diagnostic errors: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (DSS) have mainly focused on improving clinicians' diagnostic accuracy in unusual and challenging cases. However, since diagnostic omission errors may predominantly result from incomplete workup in routine clinical practice, the provision of appropriate patient- and context-specific reminders may result in greater impact on patient safety. In this experimental study, a mix of easy and difficult simulated cases were used to assess the impact of a novel diagnostic reminder system (ISABEL) on the quality of clinical decisions made by various grades of clinicians during acute assessment. METHODS: Subjects of different grades (consultants, registrars, senior house officers and medical students), assessed a balanced set of 24 simulated cases on a trial website. Subjects recorded their clinical decisions for the cases (differential diagnosis, test-ordering and treatment), before and after system consultation. A panel of two pediatric consultants independently provided gold standard responses for each case, against which subjects' quality of decisions was measured. The primary outcome measure was change in the count of diagnostic errors of omission (DEO). A more sensitive assessment of the system's impact was achieved using specific quality scores; additional consultation time resulting from DSS use was also calculated. RESULTS: 76 subjects (18 consultants, 24 registrars, 19 senior house officers and 15 students) completed a total of 751 case episodes. The mean count of DEO fell from 5.5 to 5.0 across all subjects (repeated measures ANOVA, p < 0.001); no significant interaction was seen with subject grade. Mean diagnostic quality score increased after system consultation (0.044; 95% confidence interval 0.032, 0.054). ISABEL reminded subjects to consider at least one clinically important diagnosis in 1 in 8 case episodes, and prompted them to order an important test in 1 in 10 case episodes. Median extra time taken for DSS consultation was 1 min (IQR: 30 sec to 2 min). CONCLUSION: The provision of patient- and context-specific reminders has the potential to reduce diagnostic omissions across all subject grades for a range of cases. This study suggests a promising role for the use of future reminder-based DSS in the reduction of diagnostic error.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2006

Decision tools in health care: focus on the problem, not the solution.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews or randomised-controlled trials usually help to establish the effectiveness of drugs and other health technologies, but are rarely sufficient by themselves to ensure actual clinical use of the technology. The process from innovation to routine clinical use is complex. Numerous computerised decision support systems (DSS) have been developed, but many fail to be taken up into actual use. Some developers construct technologically advanced systems with little relevance to the real world. Others did not determine whether a clinical need exists. With NHS investing 5 billion pounds sterling in computer systems, also occurring in other countries, there is an urgent need to shift from a technology-driven approach to one that identifies and employs the most cost-effective method to manage knowledge, regardless of the technology. The generic term, 'decision tool' (DT), is therefore suggested to demonstrate that these aids, which seem different technically, are conceptually the same from a clinical viewpoint. DISCUSSION: Many computerised DSSs failed for various reasons, for example, they were not based on best available knowledge; there was insufficient emphasis on their need for high quality clinical data; their development was technology-led; or evaluation methods were misapplied. We argue that DSSs and other computer-based, paper-based and even mechanical decision aids are members of a wider family of decision tools. A DT is an active knowledge resource that uses patient data to generate case specific advice, which supports decision making about individual patients by health professionals, the patients themselves or others concerned about them. The identification of DTs as a consistent and important category of health technology should encourage the sharing of lessons between DT developers and users and reduce the frequency of decision tool projects focusing only on technology. The focus of evaluation should become more clinical, with the impact of computer-based DTs being evaluated against other computer, paper- or mechanical tools, to identify the most cost effective tool for each clinical problem. SUMMARY: We suggested the generic term 'decision tool' to demonstrate that decision-making aids, such as computerised DSSs, paper algorithms, and reminders are conceptually the same, so the methods to evaluate them should be the same.

Attitude to Computers↗
PubMed2006

Efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are accepted treatments in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). However, it remains unclear whether NPPV is better than CPAP in reducing the need for endotracheal intubation (NETI) rates, mortality and other adverse events. Our aim was to review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of these two methods in ACPE management. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of CPAP and/or NIPV in the treatment of ACPE, considering the outcomes NETI, mortality and incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We searched six electronic databases up to May 2005 without language restrictions, reviewed references of relevant articles, hand searched conference proceedings and contacted experts. RESULTS: Of 790 articles identified, 17 were included. In a pooled analysis, 10 studies of CPAP compared to standard medical therapy (SMT) showed a significant 22% absolute risk reduction (ARR) in NETI (95% confidence interval (CI), -34% to -10%) and 13% in mortality (95%CI, -22% to -5%). Six studies of NPPV compared to SMT showed an 18% ARR in NETI (95%CI, -32% to -4%) and 7% in mortality (95%CI, -14% to 0%). Seven studies of NPPV compared to CPAP showed a non-significant 3% ARR in NETI (95%CI, -4% to 9%) and 2% in mortality (95%CI, -6% to 10%). None of these methods increased AMI risk. In a subgroup analysis, NPPV did not lead to better outcomes than CPAP in studies including more hypercapnic patients. CONCLUSION: Robust evidence now supports the use of CPAP and NPPV in ACPE. Both techniques decrease NETI and mortality compared to SMT and none shows increased AMI risk. CPAP should be considered a first line intervention as NPPV did not show a better efficacy, even in patients with more severe conditions, and CPAP is cheaper and easier to implement in clinical practice.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

First evaluation of the NHS direct online clinical enquiry service: a nurse-led web chat triage service for the public.

BACKGROUND: NHS Direct is a telephone triage service used by the UK public to contact a nurse for any kind of health problem. NHS Direct Online (NHSDO) extends NHS Direct, allowing the telephone to be replaced by the Internet, and introducing new opportunities for informing patients about their health. One NHSDO service under development is the Clinical Enquiry Service (CES), which uses Web chat as the communication medium. OBJECTIVE: To identify the opportunities and possible risks of such a service by exploring its safety, feasibility, and patient perceptions about using Web chat to contact a nurse. METHODS: During a six-day pilot performed in an inner-city general practice in Coventry, non-urgent patients attending their GP were asked to test the service. After filling out three Web forms, patients used a simple Web chat application to communicate with trained NHS Direct triage nurses, who responded with appropriate triage advice. All patients were seen by their GP immediately after using the Web chat service. Safety was explored by comparing the nurse triage end point with the GP's recommended end point. In order to check the feasibility of the service, we measured the duration of the chat session. Patient perceptions were measured before and after using the service through a modified Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ) instrument. All patients were observed by a researcher who captured any comments and, if necessary, to assisted with the process. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients (mean age 48 years; 57% female) agreed to participate in the study. An exact match between the nurse and the GP end point was found in 45% (10/22) of cases. In two cases, the CES nurse proposed a less urgent end point than the GP. The median duration of Web chat sessions was 30 minutes, twice the median for NHS Direct telephone calls for 360 patients with similar presenting problems. There was a significant improvement in patients' perception of CES after using the service (mean pre-test TMPQ score 44/60, post-test 49/60; p=0.008 (2-tailed)). Patients volunteered several potential advantages of CES, such as the ability to re-read the answers from the nurse. Patients consider CES a useful addition to regular care, but not a replacement for it. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this pilot, we can conclude that CES was sufficiently safe to continue piloting, but in order to make further judgments about safety, more tests with urgent cases should be performed. The Web chat sessions as conducted were too long and therefore too expensive to be sustainable in the NHS. However, the positive reaction from patients and the potential of CES for specific patient groups (the deaf, shy, or socially isolated) encourage us to continue with piloting such innovative communication methods with the public.

Decision Making, Computer-Assisted↗