Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04030975

Cognitive Process of Diagnostic Error in Emergency Physicians

Diagnostic error, Dual process model of reasoning) During the last decade, much emphasis has been placed on system solutions to patient safety problems. However, diagnostic error, despite being responsible for twice as many adverse events as medication error, has received little attention. The rate of diagnostic errors have been estimated to be between 0.6% to 12%.Some estimates are as high as 15%.The rate of negative outcome or adverse effects of diagnostic errors range from 6.9% to 17%. Most authors accept that the dual process model of reasoning explains how clinicians make diagnoses. The purpose of this study is to investigate why diagnostic errors occurred in the emergency departments (EDs).

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Age range

21 year–65 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Cathay hospital

Taipei, 10630, Taiwan

About this study

Diagnostic error, Dual process model of reasoning) During the last decade, much emphasis has been placed on system solutions to patient safety problems. However, diagnostic error, despite being responsible for twice as many adverse events as medication error, has received little attention. The rate of diagnostic errors have been estimated to be between 0.6% to 12%.Some estimates are as high as 15%.The rate of negative outcome or adverse effects of diagnostic errors range from 6.9% to 17%. Most authors accept that the dual process model of reasoning explains how clinicians make diagnoses. The purpose of this study is to investigate why diagnostic errors occurred in the emergency departments (EDs). A qualitative study approach was used with in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted with emergency physicians to investigate the cognitive diagnosis process. The study takes place in the EDs of three hospitals in Taiwan. We chose the participants using a purposive sampling technique to yield a sample that would be most likely contribute significant information on the diagnostic process. Sampling continued until novel information was no longer being gathered. All audiotapes were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts are analyzed by two of the investigators based on the ground theory. Once all relevant codes were identified, they were grouped together into meaningful categories. These categories were then grouped under appropriate themes, which were used to generate a theory of diagnostic errors.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • trained emergency physicians

Exclusion criteria

  • refused interview

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. generate a theory of diagnostic errors

    Time frame: Dec., 2015

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Cathay General Hospital

Other

Collaborators

  • Cardinal Tien Hospital

Registry information

Acronym: diagnosis

Important dates

Study start
2014
Primary completion
2015
Study completion
2015
First posted
Jul 24, 2019
Registry last updated
Jul 24, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.