Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Diagnostic error (1)
- General practice (1)
- Patient safety (1)
- Primary health care (1)
- Regret (1)
- SUDEP (1)
- Uncertainty (1)
- counseling (1)
- depression (1)
- mortality (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background: Experienced and anticipated regret influence physicians’ decision-making. In medicine, diagnostic decisions and diagnostic errors can have a severe impact on both patients and physicians. Little empirical research exists on regret experienced by physicians when they make diagnostic decisions in primary care that later prove inappropriate or incorrect. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of regret following diagnostic decisions in primary care.
Methods: In this qualitative study, we used an online questionnaire on a sample of German primary care physicians. We asked participants to report on cases in which the final diagnosis differed from their original opinion, and in which treatment was at the very least delayed, possibly resulting in harm to the patient. We asked about original and final diagnoses, illness trajectories, and the reactions of other physicians, patients and relatives. We used thematic analysis to assess the data, supported by MAXQDA 11 and Microsoft Excel 2016.
Results: 29 GPs described one case each (14 female/15 male patients, aged 1.5–80 years, response rate < 1%). In 26 of 29 cases, the final diagnosis was more serious than the original diagnosis. In two cases, the diagnoses were equally serious, and in one case less serious. Clinical trajectories and the reactions of patients and relatives differed widely. Although only one third of cases involved preventable harm to patients, the vast majority (27 of 29) of physicians expressed deep feelings of regret.
Conclusion: Even if harm to patients is unavoidable, regret following diagnostic decisions can be devastating for clinicians, making them ‘second victims’. Procedures and tools are needed to analyse cases involving undesirable diagnostic events, so that ‘true’ diagnostic errors, in which harm could have been prevented, can be distinguished from others. Further studies should also explore how physicians can be supported in dealing with such events in order to prevent them from practicing defensive medicine.
Objective: Despite increased awareness of the serious epilepsy complication sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), a substantial population of people with epilepsy (PWE) remain poorly informed. Physicians indicate concern that SUDEP information may adversely affect patients' health and quality of life. We examined SUDEP awareness and the immediate and long-term effects of providing SUDEP information to PWE.
Methods: Baseline knowledge and behaviors among PWE and behavioral adjustments following the provision of SUDEP information were evaluated in a prospective, multicenter survey using the following validated scales: Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy for depression symptoms, the EuroQoL five-dimension scale for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a visual analog scale for overall health, the revised Epilepsy Stigma Scale for perceived stigma, and the Seizure Worry Scale for seizure-related worries. The prospective study collected data through semiquantitative interviews before (baseline), immediately after, and 3 months after the provision of SUDEP information.
Results: In total, 236 participants (mean age = 39.3 years, range = 18-77 years, 51.7% women) were enrolled, and 205 (86.9%) completed long-term, 3-month follow-up. One patient died from SUDEP before follow-up. No worsening symptoms from baseline to 3-month follow-up were observed on any scale. At baseline, 27.5% of participants were aware of SUDEP. More than 85% of participants were satisfied with receiving SUDEP information. Three quarters of participants were not concerned by the information, and >80% of participants recommended the provision of SUDEP information to all PWE. Although most patients reported no behavioral adjustments, 24.8% reported strong behavioral adjustments at 3-month follow-up.
Significance: The provision of SUDEP information has no adverse effects on overall health, HRQoL, depressive symptoms, stigma, or seizure worry among PWE, who appreciate receiving information. SUDEP information provision might improve compliance among PWE and reduce but not eliminate the increased mortality risk.
