PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Chen, Yang
AU  - Nagendran, Myura
AU  - Kilic, Yakup
AU  - Cavlan, Dominic
AU  - Feather, Adam
AU  - Westwood, Mark
AU  - Rowland, Edward
AU  - Gutteridge, Charles
AU  - Lambiase, Pier D
TI  - The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
AID  - 10.1101/2020.07.27.20160846
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.07.27.20160846
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/29/2020.07.27.20160846.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/29/2020.07.27.20160846.full
AB  - Purpose of the Study To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and their associated level of certainty by clinicians assessing patients referred to the medical team from the emergency department.Design This was a single centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians at the Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust between 01/03/19 to 31/03/19. De-identified electronic health record data was collected to include the type of diagnosis documented (clinical, laboratory result or symptom/sign defined) and the certainty adjective used for single diagnoses. Presence or absence of diagnostic uncertainty was collected for multiple diagnoses.Results 865 medical assessments were recorded during the study period. 850 were available for further analysis. 420 presented a single diagnosis while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign, and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed.Conclusion The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable amongst non-consultant grade clinicians assessing patients admitted via the emergency department. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses however documentation style was heterogenous. These data have implications for prospective studies examining the quantification of diagnostic certainty and its association with important process or outcome measures.What is already known on this subject- The factors which influence medical decision-making is almost exclusively assessed by vignettes, simulations or retrospective questionnaires. The certainty or confidence level of a clinician in making a decision can be a source of bias which can lead to patient harm if their confidence is miscalibrated with their accuracy.- A recent review assessing real world studies of decision-making found only nine, all of which used a Likert or visual analogue scaleMain messages- The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable amongst non-consultant grade clinicians- In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified- Existing documentation is too heterogeneous to meaningfully analyse in a quantitative manner – increased standardisation will allow leveraging of electronic health record platforms to become better educational and research tools for clinicians and educators.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementYC and MN are supported by NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowships. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. PL is supported by UCL/UCLH Biomedicine NIHR and Barts BRC.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The UK Health Research Authority (HRA) determined that this study is exempt from requiring ethical approval by an NHS Research ethics committee (REC). This study was instead registered as a service evaluation, and the study protocol and report was logged with the local Clinical Effectiveness Unit at Barts Health NHS Trust (ID no. 10201).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRaw anonymised data is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.