Objectives Communication breakdown is one of the main causes of adverse events in clinical routine, particularly in handover situations. The communication tool SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation) was developed to increase handover quality and is widely assumed to increase patient safety. The objective of this review is to summarise the impact of the implementation of SBAR on patient safety. Design A systematic review of articles published on SBAR was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO in January 2017. All original research articles on SBAR fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included: (1) SBAR was implemented into clinical routine, (2) the investigation of SBAR was the primary objective and (3) at least one patient outcome was reported. Setting A wide range of settings within primary and secondary care and nursing homes. Participants A variety of heath professionals including nurses and physicians. Primary and secondary outcome measures Aspects of patient safety (patient outcomes) defined as the occurrence or incidence of adverse events. Results Eight studies with a before–after design and three controlled clinical trials performed in different clinical settings met the inclusion criteria. The objectives of the studies were to improve team communication, patient hand-offs and communication in telephone calls from nurses to physicians. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study characteristics, especially patient outcomes. In total, 26 different patient outcomes were measured, of which eight were reported to be significantly improved. Eleven were described as improved but no further statistical tests were reported, and six outcomes did not change significantly. Only one study reported a descriptive reduction in patient outcomes. Conclusions This review found moderate evidence for improved patient safety through SBAR implementation, especially when used to structure communication over the phone. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on this widely used communication tool. Trial registration none

Diagnostic errors occur frequently, especially in the emergency room. Estimates about the consequences of diagnostic error vary widely and little is known about the factors predicting error. Our objectives thus was to determine the rate of discrepancy between diagnoses at hospital admission and discharge in patients presenting through the emergency room, the discrepancies’ consequences, and factors predicting them. Prospective observational clinical study combined with a survey in a University-affiliated tertiary care hospital. Patients’ hospital discharge diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis at hospital admittance through the emergency room and classified as similar or discrepant according to a predefined scheme by two independent expert raters. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the effect of diagnostic discrepancy on mortality and length of hospital stay and to determine whether characteristics of patients, diagnosing physicians, and context predicted diagnostic discrepancy. 755 consecutive patients (322 [42.7%] female; mean age 65.14 years) were included. The discharge diagnosis differed substantially from the admittance diagnosis in 12.3% of cases. Diagnostic discrepancy was associated with a longer hospital stay (mean 10.29 vs. 6.90 days; Cohen’s d 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.70; P = 0.002) and increased patient mortality (8 (8.60%) vs. 25(3.78%); OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.05 to 5.5 P = 0.038). A factor available at admittance that predicted diagnostic discrepancy was the diagnosing physician’s assessment that the patient presented atypically for the diagnosis assigned (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.33–6.96; P = 0.009). Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant healthcare problem in patients admitted through the emergency room because they occur in every ninth patient and are associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Discrepancies are not readily predictable by fixed patient or physician characteristics; attention should focus on context. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e011585

Background: Although the proper use of hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) is paramount for preventing the spread of diseases such as COVID-19, health care personnel have been shown to use incorrect techniques for donning/doffing of PPE and hand hygiene, leading to a large number of infections among health professionals. Education and training are difficult owing to the social distancing restrictions in place, shortages of PPE and testing material, and lack of evidence on optimal training. Virtual reality (VR) simulation can offer a multisensory, 3-D, fully immersive, and safe training opportunity that addresses these obstacles. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the short- and long-term effectiveness of a fully immersive VR simulation versus a traditional learning method regarding a COVID-19–related skill set and media-specific variables influencing training outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study on medical students (N=29; intervention VR training, n=15, vs control video-based instruction, n=14) to compare the performance of hand disinfection, nasopharyngeal swab taking, and donning/doffing of PPE before and after training and 1 month later as well as variables of media use. Results: Both groups performed significantly better after training, with the effect sustained over one month. After training, the VR group performed significantly better in taking a nasopharyngeal swab, scoring a median of 14 out of 17 points (IQR 13-15) versus 12 out of 17 points (IQR 11-14) in the control group, P=.03. With good immersion and tolerability of the VR simulation, satisfaction was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group (median score of User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire 27/30, IQR 23-28, vs 22/30, IQR 20-24, in the control group; P=.01). Conclusions: VR simulation was at least as effective as traditional learning methods in training medical students while providing benefits regarding user satisfaction. These results add to the growing body of evidence that VR is a useful tool for acquiring simple and complex clinical skills.

Research from JAMA — Diagnostic Performance by Medical Students Working Individually or in Teams

Background. Evidence suggests that pooling multiple independent diagnoses can improve diagnostic accuracy in well-defined tasks. We investigated whether this is also the case for diagnostics in emergency medicine, an ill-defined task environment where diagnostic errors are rife. Methods. A computer simulation study was conducted based on empirical data from 2 published experimental studies. In the computer experiments, 285 medical students independently diagnosed 6 simulated patients arriving at the emergency room with dyspnea. Participants’ diagnoses (n = 1,710), confidence ratings, and expertise levels were entered into a computer simulation. Virtual groups of different sizes were randomly created, and 3 collective intelligence rules (follow-the-plurality rule, follow-the-most-confident rule, and follow-the-most-senior rule) were applied to combine the independent decisions into a final diagnosis. For different group sizes, the performance levels (i.e., percentage of correct diagnoses) of the 3 collective intelligence rules were compared with each other and against the average individual accuracy. Results. For all collective intelligence rules, combining independent decisions substantially increased performance relative to average individual performance. For groups of 4 or fewer, the follow-the-most-confident rule outperformed the other rules; for larger groups, the follow-the-plurality rule performed best. For example, combining 5 independent decisions using the follow-the-plurality rule increased diagnostic accuracy by 22 percentage points. These results were robust across case difficulty and expertise level. Limitations of the study include the use of simulated patients diagnosed by medical students. Whether results generalize to clinical practice is currently unknown. Conclusion. Combining independent decisions may substantially improve the quality of diagnoses in emergency medicine and may thus enhance patient safety.

Picture yourself in a casino sitting at the roulette table. Will you put your money on either black or red, or will you go for a riskier choice and place it on just a single number? But before you can make up your mind, the elderly, obese smoker to your right reaches for his chest and collapses. ‘What is wrong with him?’, cries his accompanying wife, looking at you in shock. In this issue, Lawton and colleagues ask whether more experienced clinicians are better able to tolerate uncertainty and manage risks.1 Doctors working in three emergency departments (ED) read four clinical vignettes each accompanied by four quite distinct options for management, all of which might be deemed clinically acceptable. Participants used 5-point Likert scales to indicate their agreement with each of the management plans. By design, the four options offered for each vignette included two management plans one would characterise as ‘risk averse’—requiring further tests and/or admission of the patient to hospital. The other two management plans may be seen as less risk averse, usually involving referring a patient back to the general practitioner or offering reassurance to the patient. In addition to rating their agreement with each of the possible management plans for the four vignettes, participants reported their experience (number of years worked in an ED setting) and answered a 15-item ‘Physicians Reactions to Uncertainty’ scale. Analysing the responses from 90 doctors, who had worked in EDs for between 5 weeks and 21 years, Lawton and colleagues report a medium to large correlation between experience and tolerance of risk. More experienced clinicians made less risk averse decisions. We would like to provide three conceptual considerations potentially relevant to interpret these results from Lawton and colleagues and identify possible follow-up research. Roulette serves as a classic example for …