Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 29;13(3):e072649.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072649.

Effects of a computerised diagnostic decision support tool on diagnostic quality in emergency departments: study protocol of the DDx-BRO multicentre cluster randomised cross-over trial

Thimo Marcin  1 , Stefanie C Hautz  1 , Hardeep Singh  2   3 , Laura Zwaan  4 , David Schwappach  5 , Gert Krummrey  1   6 , Stefan K Schauber  7 , Mathieu Nendaz  8 , Aristomenis Konstantinos Exadaktylos  1 , Martin Müller  1 , Cornelia Lambrigger  1 , Thomas C Sauter  1 , Gregor Lindner  9 , Simon Bosbach  10 , Ines Griesshammer  11 , Wolf E Hautz  12
Affiliations

Effects of a computerised diagnostic decision support tool on diagnostic quality in emergency departments: study protocol of the DDx-BRO multicentre cluster randomised cross-over trial

Thimo Marcin et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Computerised diagnostic decision support systems (CDDS) suggesting differential diagnoses to physicians aim to improve clinical reasoning and diagnostic quality. However, controlled clinical trials investigating their effectiveness and safety are absent and the consequences of its use in clinical practice are unknown. We aim to investigate the effect of CDDS use in the emergency department (ED) on diagnostic quality, workflow, resource consumption and patient outcomes.

Methods and analysis: This is a multicentre, outcome assessor and patient-blinded, cluster-randomised, multiperiod crossover superiority trial. A validated differential diagnosis generator will be implemented in four EDs and randomly allocated to a sequence of six alternating intervention and control periods. During intervention periods, the treating ED physician will be asked to consult the CDDS at least once during diagnostic workup. During control periods, physicians will not have access to the CDDS and diagnostic workup will follow usual clinical care. Key inclusion criteria will be patients' presentation to the ED with either fever, abdominal pain, syncope or a non-specific complaint as chief complaint. The primary outcome is a binary diagnostic quality risk score composed of presence of an unscheduled medical care after discharge, change in diagnosis or death during time of follow-up or an unexpected upscale in care within 24 hours after hospital admission. Time of follow-up is 14 days. At least 1184 patients will be included. Secondary outcomes include length of hospital stay, diagnostics and data regarding CDDS usage, physicians' confidence calibration and diagnostic workflow. Statistical analysis will use general linear mixed modelling methods.

Ethics and dissemination: Approved by the cantonal ethics committee of canton Berne (2022-D0002) and Swissmedic, the Swiss national regulatory authority on medical devices. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, open repositories and the network of investigators and the expert and patients advisory board.

Trial registration number: NCT05346523.

Keywords: accident & emergency medicine; decision making; health informatics; information management; internal medicine; quality in health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: WEH has received research funding from the European Union, the Swiss National Science Foundation, Zoll foundation, Dräger Medical Germany, Mundipharma Research UK, MDI International Australia, Roche Diagnostics Germany, all outside the submitted work. WEH has provided paid consultancies to AO foundation Switzerland and MDI International Australia, all outside the submitted work. WEH has received financial support for a congress he chaired from EBSCO Germany, Isabel Healthcare UK, Mundipharma Medical Switzerland, VisualDx USA, all outside the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. ED, emergency department.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine . Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2015. 10.17226/21794 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singh H, Meyer AND, Thomas EJ. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving us adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:727–31. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Newman-Toker DE, Peterson SM, Badihian S, et al. Diagnostic errors in the emergency department: a systematic review. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2022. - PubMed
    1. Hautz WE, Kämmer JE, Hautz SC, et al. Diagnostic error increases mortality and length of hospital stay in patients presenting through the emergency room. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2019;27:54. 10.1186/s13049-019-0629-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zwaan L, de Bruijne M, Wagner C, et al. Patient record review of the incidence, consequences, and causes of diagnostic adverse events. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1015–21. 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.146 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data