Human centered design workshops as a meta-solution to diagnostic disparities

Equity-Driven Diagnostic Excellence framework: An upstream approach to minimize risk of diagnostic inequity

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic errors represent the most common and costly preventable patient safety events, with historically marginalized populations disproportionately impacted due to systemic inequities in healthcare. Addressing these disparities requires embedding equity into every facet of the diagnostic process. The aim was to develop, refine, and validate a competency framework for Equity-Driven Diagnostic Excellence (DxEqEx).

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used, involving transdisciplinary diverse healthcare system participants, including patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. Participants were guided through multiple rounds of feedback and ratings, assessing the importance, disciplinary relevance, feasibility, skill acquisition level required, granularity, and representativeness of the DxEqEx framework.

RESULTS

Sixteen essential competencies have been identified, categorized into three domains: Intrapersonal, Team-based, and Structural. Participants rated the framework with high importance and strong relevance to their respective disciplines. However, the feasibility of implementing the framework varied, largely due to broader challenges within the healthcare system. The competencies were assessed as requiring a proficient skill level according to Dreyfus' model. The final round maintained strong ratings for granularity and representativeness, which supported the final version of the framework.

CONCLUSIONS

The DxEqEx framework holds significant potential to proactively address the needs of historically marginalized patients throughout the diagnostic process. Future research should focus on participatory, resource-efficient implementation.

Exploring sociodemographic disparities in diagnostic problems and mistakes in the quest for diagnostic equity: insights from a national survey of patient experiences

Introduction

As part of building a platform for epidemiological research on diagnostic errors and problems that centers on patients and equity, this paper summarizes the development and analysis of data collected from fielding a survey in a nationally representative U.S. population to explore the prevalence and harm consequences of diagnostic problems or mistakes (referred to here as "diagnostic P&Ms") by respondent-reported sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

We applied narrative elicitation methods to enhance the rigor of implementing a novel survey about diagnostic experiences. We conducted a U.S. population-based survey of a nationally representative sample in 2022-2023, drawn from the NORC AmeriSpeak® panel. We conducted multivariate regression analysis at the household level and in a patient subsample to explore sociodemographic predictors of diagnostic P&Ms and related outcomes in the aftermath.

Results

The comparative analysis by sociodemographic characteristics estimates prevalence of diagnostic P&Ms, prevalence of persisting harms, rate of respondent-reported perceptions of personal attribute adversely affecting diagnosis, and concern about future diagnostic P&Ms. Outcome estimates ranged from about 4% (concern about future diagnostic P&M) to 38% (at least one P&M in households during the past 4 years). Several sociodemographic groups experienced statistically significant higher levels of risk for these outcomes, with some at greater than twice the odds compared to reference groups-transgender and gender independent individuals (e.g., 5 + -fold odds of expectation of future P&M compared to cis-males), cis-females (e.g., greater than 1.5 odds of persistent physical and emotional harms compared to cis-males), low household income (e.g., twice the likelihood of multiple P&Ms for incomes under $60 K compared to $100 K+ households), younger age (3-fold odds of at least one diagnostic P&M for those under 25 years old compared to those aged 45-54), multiracial individuals (about twice the odds of diagnostic P&Ms compared to non-Hispanic White), and disabled and unable to work full-time (more than twice the likelihood of perceiving that a personal attribute impaired diagnosis compared to those with other work status designations).

Discussion

This new survey and accompanying data source facilitate an enriched exploration of the patterns of diagnostic disparities and points of leverage through which diagnostic experiences can be made more equitable.

Typology of solutions addressing diagnostic disparities: gaps and opportunities

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic disparities are preventable differences in diagnostic errors or opportunities to achieve diagnostic excellence. There is a need to summarize solutions with explicit considerations for addressing diagnostic disparities. We aimed to describe potential solutions to diagnostic disparities, organize them into an action-oriented typology with illustrative examples, and characterize these solutions to identify gaps for their further development.

METHODS

During four human-centered design workshops composed of diverse expertise, participants ideated and clarified potential solutions to diagnostic disparities and were supported by environmental literature scan inputs. Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews with workshop participants validated identified solution examples and solution type characterizations, refining the typology.

RESULTS

Our typology organizes 21 various types of potential diagnostic disparities solutions into four primary expertise categories needed for implementation: healthcare systems' internal expertise, educator-, multidisciplinary patient safety researcher-, and health IT-expertise. We provide descriptions of potential solution types ideated as focused on disparities and compare those to existing examples. Six types were characterized as having diagnostic-disparity-focused examples, five as having diagnostic-focused examples, and 10 as only having general healthcare examples. Only three solution types had widespread implementation. Twelve had implementation on limited scope, and six were mostly hypothetical. We describe gaps that inform the progress needed for each of the suggested solution types to specifically address diagnostic disparities and be suitable for the implementation in routine practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous opportunities exist to tailor existing solutions and promote their implementation. Likely enablers include new perspectives, more evidence, multidisciplinary collaborations, system redesign, meaningful patient engagement, and action-oriented coalitions.

Opportunities to Apply Human-centered Design in Health Care With Artificial Intelligence-based Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to provide a novel opportunity to increase screening for DR. While it is paramount to ensure AI has adequate technical capabilities to perform accurate screening, it is also important to assess how to best implement such technology into clinical practice. Human-centered design offers a methodology to understand the real-world context and behaviors of individuals, engage stakeholders, and rapidly prototype and test solutions, enhancing usability and avoiding unintended consequences. This review describes the methodology of human-centered design, examining how it has been used within a variety of health care contexts, with a particular focus on how it has been used to implement an AI-based DR screening program. Further research is needed to understand the best strategies to implement and evaluate AI in health care.

Assessing the Utility of a Patient-Facing Diagnostic Tool Among Individuals With Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), characterized by joint hypermobility, skin laxity, and tissue fragility, is thought to be the most common inherited connective tissue disorder, with millions affected worldwide. Diagnosing this condition remains a challenge that can impact quality of life for individuals with hEDS. Many with hEDS describe extended diagnostic odysseys involving exorbitant time and monetary investment. This delay is due to the complexity of diagnosis, symptom overlap with other conditions, and limited access to providers. Many primary care providers are unfamiliar with hEDS, compounded by genetics clinics that do not accept referrals for hEDS evaluation and long waits for genetics clinics that do evaluate for hEDS, leaving patients without sufficient options.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the user experience, quality, and utility of a prototype of a patient-facing diagnostic tool intended to support clinician diagnosis for individuals with symptoms of hEDS. The questions included within the prototype are aligned with the 2017 international classification of Ehlers-Danlos syndromes. This study explored how this tool may help patients communicate information about hEDS to their physicians, influencing the diagnosis of hEDS and affecting patient experience.

METHODS

Participants clinically diagnosed with hEDS were recruited from either a medical center or private groups on a social media platform. Interested participants provided verbal consent, completed questionnaires about their diagnosis, and were invited to join an internet-based focus group to share their thoughts and opinions on a diagnostic tool prototype. Participants were invited to complete the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) to evaluate their experience viewing the diagnostic tool. The MARS is a framework for evaluating mobile health apps across 4 dimensions: engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information quality. Qualitative data were analyzed using affinity mapping to organize information and inductively create themes that were categorized within the MARS framework dimensions to help identify strengths and weaknesses of the diagnostic tool prototype.

RESULTS

In total, 15 individuals participated in the internet-based focus groups; 3 (20%) completed the MARS. Through affinity diagramming, 2 main categories of responses were identified, including responses related to the user interface and responses related to the application of the tool. Each category included several themes and subthemes that mapped well to the 4 MARS dimensions. The analysis showed that the tool held value and utility among the participants diagnosed with hEDS. The shareable ending summary sheet provided by the tool stood out as a strength for facilitating communication between patient and provider during the diagnostic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide insights on the perceived utility and value of the tool, including preferred phrasing, layout and design preferences, and tool accessibility. The participants expressed that the tool may improve the hEDS diagnostic odyssey and help educate providers about the diagnostic process.

"It's probably an STI because you're gay": a qualitative study of diagnostic error experiences in sexual and gender minority individuals

BACKGROUND

There is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations.

PURPOSE

To identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions.

METHODS

Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes.

Co-Designing an Initiative to Increase Shared Access to Older Adults' Patient Portals: Stakeholder Engagement

BACKGROUND

The patient portal is a widely available secure digital platform offered by care delivery organizations that enables patients to communicate electronically with clinicians and manage their care. Many organizations allow patients to authorize family members or friends-"care partners"-to share access to patient portal accounts, thus enabling care partners to receive their own identity credentials. Shared access facilitates trilateral information exchange among patients, clinicians, and care partners; however, uptake and awareness of this functionality are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We partnered with 3 health care organizations to co-design an initiative that aimed to increase shared access registration and use and that can be implemented using existing patient portals.

METHODS

In 2020, we undertook a rigorous selection process to identify 3 geographically diverse health care organizations that had engaged medical informatics teams and clinical champions within service delivery lines caring for older adults. We prioritized selecting organizations that serve racially and socioeconomically diverse populations and possess sophisticated reporting capabilities, a stable patient portal platform, a sufficient volume of older adult patients, and active patient and family advisory councils. Along with patients and care partners, clinicians, staff, and other stakeholders, the study team co-designed an initiative to increase the uptake of shared access guided by either an iterative, human-centered design process or rapid assessment procedures of stakeholders' inputs.

RESULTS

Between February 2020 and April 2022, 73 stakeholder engagements were conducted with patients and care partners, clinicians and clinic staff, medical informatics teams, marketing and communications staff, and administrators, as well as with funders and thought leaders. We collected insights regarding (1) barriers to awareness, registration, and use of shared access; (2) features of consumer-facing educational materials to address identified barriers; (3) features of clinician- and staff-facing materials to address identified barriers; and (4) approaches to fit the initiative into current workflows. Using these inputs iteratively via a human-centered design process, we produced brochures and posters, co-designed organization-specific web pages detailing shared access registration processes, and developed clinician and staff talking points about shared access and staff tip sheets that outline shared access registration steps. Educational materials emphasized the slogan "People remember less than half of what their doctors say," which was selected from 9 candidate alternatives as resonating best with the full range of the initiative's stakeholders. The materials were accompanied by implementation toolkits specifying and reinforcing workflows involving both in-person and telehealth visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement allowed our deliberate, iterative, and human-centered co-design aimed at increasing the use of shared access. Our initiative has been launched as a part of a 12-month demonstration that will include quantitative and qualitative analysis of registration and use of shared access. Educational materials are publicly available at Coalition for Care Partners.