IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i1p102-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Reasoning: Patients’ and Care Partners’ Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care

Author

Listed:
  • Vadim Dukhanin

    (Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Kathryn M. McDonald

    (Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Natalia Gonzalez

    (Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Kelly T. Gleason

    (Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA)

Abstract

Objectives In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients’ and care partners’ perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy. Methods In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively. Results A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients’ subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor’s opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team’s attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative. Conclusions Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy. Implications As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice. Highlights An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care. In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have. We introduce “patient reasoning†in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health.

Suggested Citation

  • Vadim Dukhanin & Kathryn M. McDonald & Natalia Gonzalez & Kelly T. Gleason, 2024. "Patient Reasoning: Patients’ and Care Partners’ Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 102-111, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:102-111
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231207829
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231207829
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231207829?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:102-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.