Typology of solutions addressing diagnostic disparities: gaps and opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic disparities are preventable differences in diagnostic errors or opportunities to achieve diagnostic excellence. There is a need to summarize solutions with explicit considerations for addressing diagnostic disparities. We aimed to describe potential solutions to diagnostic disparities, organize them into an action-oriented typology with illustrative examples, and characterize these solutions to identify gaps for their further development. METHODS: During four human-centered design workshops composed of diverse expertise, participants ideated and clarified potential solutions to diagnostic disparities and were supported by environmental literature scan inputs. Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews with workshop participants validated identified solution examples and solution type characterizations, refining the typology. RESULTS: Our typology organizes 21 various types of potential diagnostic disparities solutions into four primary expertise categories needed for implementation: healthcare systems' internal expertise, educator-, multidisciplinary patient safety researcher-, and health IT-expertise. We provide descriptions of potential solution types ideated as focused on disparities and compare those to existing examples. Six types were characterized as having diagnostic-disparity-focused examples, five as having diagnostic-focused examples, and 10 as only having general healthcare examples. Only three solution types had widespread implementation. Twelve had implementation on limited scope, and six were mostly hypothetical. We describe gaps that inform the progress needed for each of the suggested solution types to specifically address diagnostic disparities and be suitable for the implementation in routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous opportunities exist to tailor existing solutions and promote their implementation. Likely enablers include new perspectives, more evidence, multidisciplinary collaborations, system redesign, meaningful patient engagement, and action-oriented coalitions.

"It's probably an STI because you're gay": a qualitative study of diagnostic error experiences in sexual and gender minority individuals.

BACKGROUND: There is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. PURPOSE: To identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions. METHODS: Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Interviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes.

Primary care provider attitudes, experiences and practices about cannabidiol (CBD) and barriers to patient-provider communication about CBD use: A qualitative study.

Objectives: Federal hemp legalization and ongoing shifts in US marijuana laws have led to increased population-wide use of cannabidiol (CBD) supplements, often without the knowledge of primary healthcare providers (PCPs). Given the potential risks related to CBD use, especially in vulnerable subgroups, improved communication is warranted. This study aimed to examine PCP attitudes, experiences, and practice behaviors related to CBD and provider-reported barriers to communication with patients about CBD use. Methods: Fourteen PCPs were recruited and participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were digitally analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Analyses identified that most PCPs had neutral views about CBD use by their patients. The study found that discussions about CBD use were initiated by patients. Most PCPs cited lack of time, discomfort, low-quality evidence, and low prioritization as reasons for not discussing CBD with patients. Conclusion: PCPs rarely screen for or discuss CBD use with their patients and most of them had neutral views about CBD use by their patients. A number of barriers exist to open dialogue about CBD. Innovation: Our study is the first in-depth report on PCP attitudes, experiences, and practice behaviors related to CBD. The findings of our study have the potential to significantly impact future PCP practice behaviors. These results can inform healthcare system policies around screening for CBD use and PCP communication training. In doing so, these efforts may mitigate risk and optimize benefits related to the expanding CBD market.

Human centered design workshops as a meta-solution to diagnostic disparities.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors - inaccurate or untimely diagnoses or failures to communicate diagnoses - are harmful and costly for patients and health systems. Diagnostic disparities occur when diagnostic errors are experienced at disproportionate rates by certain patient subgroups based, for example, on patients' age, sex/gender, or race/ethnicity. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a human centered design workshop series that engages diverse stakeholders to develop solutions for mitigating diagnostic disparities. METHODS: We employed a series of human centered design workshops supplemented by semi-structured interviews and literature evidence scans. Co-creation sessions and rapid prototyping by patient, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were used to generate design challenges, solution concepts, and prototypes. RESULTS: A series of four workshops attended by 25 unique participants was convened in 2019-2021. Workshops generated eight design challenges, envisioned 29 solutions, and formulated principles for developing solutions in an equitable, patient-centered manner. Workshops further resulted in the conceptualization of 37 solutions for addressing diagnostic disparities and prototypes for two of the solutions. Participants agreed that the workshop processes were replicable and could be implemented in other settings to allow stakeholders to generate context-specific solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of human centered design through a series of workshops promises to be a productive way of engaging patient-researcher stakeholders to mitigate and prevent further exacerbation of diagnostic disparities. Healthcare stakeholders can apply human centered design principles to guide thinking about improving diagnostic performance and to center diverse patients' needs and experiences when implementing quality and safety improvements.

Electronic Vaping Product Use Among Adolescents in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Updated Scientific Review for Clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: In light of increased rates of hospitalizations among adolescents diagnosed with severe symptoms of COVID-19, as well as the prevalence of electronic vaping product (EVP) use among this population, this review highlights the public health and clinical implications of EVP use during an ongoing respiratory disease pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This review assesses evidence of pulmonary effects of EVP use from pathophysiological and epidemiological research and explores EVP use as a risk factor for COVID-19. METHODS: An updated, yet concise, literature review of recent scientific evidence examining trends of EVP use among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. Included in this review are studies examining the pulmonary effects of EVP use and scope of the problem relating to its use among adolescents within the context of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical and theoretical models establish pulmonary harm associated with EVPs. Based on the limited epidemiological studies, the contribution of EVP use to the risk of contracting COVID-19 is mixed. EVP-associated lung injury could present as a diagnostic challenge for clinicians during COVID-19 and requires greater attention. Clinicians should effectively screen for and discourage EVP use among adolescents.