Correcting biases in psychiatric diagnostic practice in Northwest Russia: comparing the impact of a general educational program and a specific diagnostic training program

A Library of Logic Models to Explain How Interventions to Reduce Diagnostic Errors Work

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to create a library of logic models for interventions to reduce diagnostic error. This library can be used by those developing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention to improve patient care, to understand what needs to happen, and in what order, if the intervention is to be effective.

METHODS

To create the library, we modified an existing method for generating logic models. The following five ordered activities to include in each model were defined: preintervention; implementation of the intervention; postimplementation, but before the immediate outcome can occur; the immediate outcome (usually behavior change); and postimmediate outcome, but before a reduction in diagnostic errors can occur. We also included reasons for lack of progress through the model. Relevant information was extracted about existing evaluations of interventions to reduce diagnostic error, identified by updating a previous systematic review.

RESULTS

Data were synthesized to create logic models for four types of intervention, addressing five causes of diagnostic error in seven stages in the diagnostic pathway. In total, 46 interventions from 43 studies were included and 24 different logic models were generated.

CONCLUSIONS

We used a novel approach to create a freely available library of logic models. The models highlight the importance of attending to what needs to occur before and after intervention delivery if the intervention is to be effective. Our work provides a useful starting point for intervention developers, helps evaluators identify intermediate outcomes, and provides a method to enable others to generate libraries for interventions targeting other errors.

Diagnostic Errors and the Bedside Clinical Examination

Diagnostic errors are common in clinical practice and lead to adverse patient outcomes. Systematic reviews have shown that inadequate history taking and physical examination lead to a plurality, if not a majority, of diagnostic errors. Recent advances in cognitive science have also shown that unconscious biases likely contribute to many diagnostic errors. Research into diagnostic error has been hampered by methodologic inconsistency and a paucity of studies in real-world clinical settings. The best evidence indicates that educational interventions to reduce diagnostic error should give physicians feedback about clinical outcomes and enhance their ability to recognize signs and symptoms of specific diseases at the bedside.