Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics
Date Submitted: Mar 17, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 20, 2019 - May 15, 2019
Date Accepted: Sep 2, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Differential Diagnosis Assessment in Ambulatory Care with an Automated Medical History-Taking Device: A Pilot Randomized Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Automated medical history-taking devices (AMHTD) are emerging tools with the potential to increase the quality of medical consultations by providing physicians with an exhaustive, high-quality, standardized anamnesis and differential diagnosis (DD).
Objective:
This study aims to assess the effectiveness of an AMHTD to obtain an accurate DD in an outpatient service.
Methods:
We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial including 59 patients presenting to an emergency outpatient unit and suffering from various conditions affecting the limbs, the back and the chest wall. Resident physicians were randomized into two groups, one assisted by the AMHTD and one without access to the device. For each patient, physicians were asked to establish an exhaustive DD based on the anamnesis and clinical examination. In the intervention group, residents read the AMHTD report before performing the anamnesis. In both groups, the senior physician had to establish a DD, considered as the gold standard, independent of the resident’s opinion and the AMHTD report.
Results:
Physicians in the intervention group (n=29) had more years of clinical practice compared to the control group (n=30) (mean: 4.3 ± 2 vs. 5.5 ± 2, respectively; P=.03). There were also 16.1% more DDs in the intervention group (mean: 75.3 ± 26% vs. 59.2 ± 31%, respectively; P=.01). Subgroup analysis showed a between-group difference of 3.3% for low complexity cases (1-2 DDs possible) in favor of the AHMTD, 31.1% for intermediate complexity (3 DDs), and 23.7% for high complexity (4-5 DDs). The AMHTD was able to determine 72.6 ± 30% of the correct DDs. Patient satisfaction was good (4.3/5) and 26/29 patients (90%) estimated being able to accurately describe their symptomatology. In eight of 29 cases (28%), the residents considered that the AMHTD helped DD establishment.
Conclusions:
The AMHTD allowed physicians to make more accurate DD, particularly in complex cases where the diagnosis is not evident. This could be explained not only by the ability of the AMHTD to make the right diagnoses, but also by the exhaustive anamnesis provideApproved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Geneva University Hospitals (REQ-2017-00878).d. Clinical Trial: Approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Geneva University Hospitals (REQ-2017-00878).
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.