BACKGROUND: 's 2013 systematic review of interventions to reduce diagnostic error. OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the types of published interventions for reducing diagnostic error that have been evaluated in terms of an objective patient outcome; (2) to assess the risk of bias in the included interventions and perform a sensitivity analysis of the findings; and (3) to determine the effectiveness of included interventions with respect to their intervention type. METHODS: (technique, technology-based system interventions, educational interventions, personnel changes, structured process changes and additional review methods). RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen of the 20 included studies (including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) demonstrated improvements in objective patient outcomes following the intervention. These three RCTs individually evaluated a technique-based intervention, a technology-based system intervention and a structured process change. The inclusion or exclusion of two higher risk of bias studies did not affect the results. CONCLUSION: Technique-based interventions, technology-based system interventions and structured process changes have been the most studied interventions over the time period of this review and hence are seen to be effective in reducing diagnostic error. However, more high-quality RCTs are required, particularly evaluating educational interventions and personnel changes, to demonstrate the value of these interventions in diverse settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dave et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: