Repository logo
 

Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study.

Accepted version
Peer-reviewed

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Change log

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Safety-netting is intended to protect against harm from uncertainty in diagnosis/disease trajectory. Despite recommendations to communicate diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting, this is not always done. AIMS: To explore how and why doctors safety-netted in response to several clinical scenarios, within the broader context of exploring how doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty. METHODS: Doctors working in internal medical specialties (n=36) from five hospitals were given vignettes in a randomised order (all depicting different clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty). After reading each, they told an interviewer what they would tell a 'typical patient' in this situation. A follow-up semistructured interview explored reasons for their communication. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. We examined how participants safety-netted using a content analysis approach, and why they safety-netting with thematic analysis of the semistructured follow-up interviews using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We observed n=78 instances of safety-netting (across 108 vignette encounters). We found significant variation in how participants safety-netted. Safety-netting was common (although not universal), but clinicians differed in the detail provided about symptoms to be alert for, and the action advised. Although many viewed safety-netting as an important tool for managing diagnostic uncertainty, diagnostic uncertainty was infrequently explicitly discussed; most advised patients to return if symptoms worsened or new 'red flag' symptoms developed, but they rarely linked this directly to the possibility of diagnostic error. Some participants expressed concerns that communicating diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting may cause anxiety for patients or could drive inappropriate reattendance/over-investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Participants safety-netted variously, even when presented with identical clinical information. Although safety-netting was seen as important in avoiding diagnostic error, concerns about worrying patients may have limited discussion about diagnostic uncertainty. Research is needed to determine whether communicating diagnostic uncertainty makes safety-netting more effective at preventing harm associated with diagnostic error, and whether it causes significant patient anxiety.

Description

Journal Title

BMJ Qual Saf

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

2044-5415
2044-5423

Volume Title

Publisher

BMJ

Rights and licensing

Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International
Sponsorship
Wellcome Trust (208213/Z/17/Z)
This research was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust 208213/Z/17/Z. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. This work was part-funded by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute (RG88620), where CC, TH and ZF are based. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation – an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. Caitriona Cox, lead researcher, is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) academic clinical fellow. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Wellcome Trust. The study received approval from the University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee.