Checklists to reduce diagnostic error: a systematic review of the literature using a human factors framework.

OBJECTIVES: To apply a human factors framework to understand whether checklists reduce clinical diagnostic error have (1) gaps in composition; and (2) components that may be more likely to reduce errors.
DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through 15 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any article that included a clinical checklist aimed at improving the diagnostic process. Checklists were defined as any structured guide intended to elicit additional thinking regarding diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently reviewed and selected articles based on eligibility criteria. Each extracted unique checklist was independently characterised according to the well-established human factors framework: Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (SEIPS 2.0). If reported, checklist efficacy in reducing diagnostic error (eg, diagnostic accuracy, number of errors or any patient-related outcomes) was outlined. Risk of study bias was independently evaluated using standardised quality assessment tools in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 30 articles containing 25 unique checklists were included. Checklists were characterised within the SEIPS 2.0 framework as follows: Work Systems subcomponents of Tasks (n=13), Persons (n=2) and Internal Environment (n=3); Processes subcomponents of Cognitive (n=20) and Social and Behavioural (n=2); and Outcomes subcomponents of Professional (n=2). Other subcomponents, such as External Environment or Patient outcomes, were not addressed. Fourteen checklists examined effect on diagnostic outcomes: seven demonstrated improvement, six were without improvement and one demonstrated mixed results. Importantly, Tasks-oriented studies more often demonstrated error reduction (n=5/7) than those addressing the Cognitive process (n=4/10).
CONCLUSIONS: Most diagnostic checklists incorporated few human factors components. Checklists addressing the SEIPS 2.0 Tasks subcomponent were more often associated with a reduction in diagnostic errors. Studies examining less explored subcomponents and emphasis on Tasks, rather than the Cognitive subcomponents, may be warranted to prevent diagnostic errors. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

This is the first review to use a human factors framework to study checklists aimed at reducing diagnostic error.

The search’s broadness and inclusiveness help in finding trends among the checklists literature that’s still in its infancy.

Despite its broadness and inclusiveness, elements outside Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (SEIPS 2.0) may also be important in evaluating diagnostic checklists.

Characterising clinical diagnosis checklists according to SEIPS 2.0 can be subjective.

Introduction

Diagnostic error is a leading cause of mortality in the USA.1–3 As a preventable source of patient harm, errors in diagnosis represent a key opportunity to improve patient safety.1–4 Diagnostic errors are multifactorial in aetiology—individual aspects such as faulty reasoning and cognitive biases as well as system processes related to data retrieval and distractions are all posited to be associated with errors.5–7 To reduce patient harm, several system (eg, trigger alerts in times at high risk) and individual interventions (eg, training against common biases) have been tested.8–10 Yet, to date, successful interventions to reduce diagnostic error remain elusive.

Beyond diagnostic errors, one approach shown to be efficacious in preventing errors and improving safety is the checklist.11 Used in myriad fields including military, agriculture and aviation,12–15 checklists organise processes into sequential, step-by-step tasks, thus simplifying complex work. In similar fashion, human factors, a discipline established in most safety critical industries, uses knowledge about human behaviour to design safer systems.16 In medicine, integration of checklists and human factors engineering have been shown to improve safety in multiple domains including central line-associated bloodstream infections and surgical time-outs.17 18 However, whether these tools affect diagnostic outcomes remains unclear.19

While several checklists to reduce diagnostic errors have been published,20–22 whether and how human and systems factors are integrated within current checklist contents remains unknown. Challenges within cognitive, systems and patient factors have been identified as important root causes for diagnostic error.23–26 One may hypothesise that checklists may reduce diagnostic error by targeting all of these root causes; conversely those that focus on one or none of these issues are less likely to be successful. Alternatively, a single component of these checklists may represent the ‘active ingredient’, and therefore, may be a high-yield target for future research. To date, this empiric question has not been answered. Therefore, in this systematic review, we examined checklists aimed at decreasing diagnostic errors by utilising an established human factors framework: the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (SEIPS 2.0).27 The SEIPS 2.0 model has been widely adopted in healthcare research to advance patient safety and quality improvement.28–30 We used SEIPS 2.0 to study available clinical diagnosis checklists and understand which human factors are more associated with reducing diagnostic error.

Methods

We developed a review protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019136830) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations for reporting our findings.31

Data sources and searches

A medical librarian (WT) performed serial literature searches between 30 April 2019 and 15 February 2022 for articles containing clinical diagnosis checklists. Databases were searched from inception and included PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. Searches were designed for each database and included controlled vocabulary terms (eg, Medical Subject Headings), keywords to represent concepts, including “checklist,” “differential diagnosis” and “diagnostic errors.” No restrictions were placed on publication date, language or completion status. The full search strategy and code are available in the attached online supplemental file 1.

Study selection

Articles were eligible for inclusion if they included one or more checklists aimed at improving the diagnostic process. To ensure rigour, in addition to articles where checklists were formally evaluated via experimental designs, we also included articles that proposed checklists without formal evaluation. Articles were excluded if they did not have an explicit checklist or if their checklists were solely for disease screening purposes; included checklists that were only intended to diagnose a specific disease (eg, melanoma); or if they focused on processes outside of diagnosis (eg, procedural/surgical safety checklists). If the same checklist was used in more than one study, each individual study was included provided that the study design and methods reporting checklist performance were substantively different. Checklists were defined broadly and included any multicomponent structured guide intended to elicit additional thinking regarding diagnosis. This included disease/symptom specific differential diagnosis checklists that incorporated a comprehensive list of items aimed at avoiding missing alternative diagnoses as well as general debiasing checklists aimed at avoiding missing basic steps in the diagnostic process (ie, checklists that lead to reproducible approach to diagnosis). Checklists did not necessitate physical box checking for inclusion, as only five published checklists included this requirement (online supplemental Table S1).

We considered peer-reviewed articles published in any language, but only included foreign language articles when an English translation was available. Two authors (JA-K and RFT) independently determined study eligibility; when necessary, differences were adjudicated by a third author (AG). Interrater agreement for study eligibility and data abstraction was assessed using the Cohen k coefficient.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data were extracted from included articles independently and in duplicate by two authors (J.A. and RFT) using a template adopted from the Cochrane Collaboration32 (online supplemental file 1). Data on the study design, population, checklist content and study outcomes were extracted. Each study, when appropriate, was assessed for risk of bias (RoB) in its design, data synthesis and analysis, outcome-measuring and conclusion, by two authors using the following established and validated quality assessment tools: Cochrane’s RoB 2.0 tool for randomised studies,33 ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised quasi experimental studies,34 the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies (with control),35 and the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Quality Assessment tool for pretest and post-test cohort studies without control (see online supplemental file 1 for references to those tools).36 Discrepancies in ratings were resolved after joint review and discussion.

Data synthesis and analysis

Checklist categorisation

We categorized elements targeted in diagnostic checklists using the SEIPS 2.0 framework. We chose SEIPS 2.0 as an organising structure to assess checklists because it considers clinical aspects, cognitive, human and system factors that can contribute to diagnostic errors and adverse events.37 The three primary components of SEIPS 2.0 include: Work System (including subcomponents of Person(s), Tasks, Internal Environment, External Environment, Tools and Technologies and Organisation), Processes (including subcomponents of Cognitive, Physical, and Social and Behavioural) and Outcomes (including subcomponents of Patient, Professional and Organisational).27

We examined included elements of each study checklist and assigned them to components or subcomponents of SEIPS 2.0. Within the Work System, checklist elements were characterised as Persons if they address factors such as clinicians’ level of clinical knowledge, clinicians or patients’ demeaner, or patient factors such as health status, age and level of education. Elements requesting that physicians perform actions to assist in the diagnostic process (eg, obtain history, order a test) were classified as Tasks. Checklist elements that focused on care setting (eg, location of care, workspace design and noise) were considered as targeting the Internal Environment, while those elements focused on the larger or the non-immediate environment (eg, leadership decisions and institutional policies) were categorised as targeting the External Environment. Elements advocating the use of tools (eg, digital aids) to assist in the diagnostic process were assigned to the Tools and Technology category. Finally, checklists that addressed factors, such as roles of providers, patient visit times or workload, were characterised as Organisation factors.

Within the Processes component, checklist elements targeting cognitive functions (eg, listing differential diagnosis, pausing to consider cognitive biases) were categorised as Cognitive Processes, whereas elements incorporating physical factors to aid diagnosis (eg, having to a computer to access patient charts readily) were categorised as Physical Processes. Elements advocating clinician communication with either team members or patients were categorised as Social and Behavioural subcomponents. Finally, within the Outcomes SEIPS 2.0 component, checklist elements were described as incorporating Patient (eg, patient satisfaction and quality of care), Professional (eg, clinicians’ fatigue and burnout), or Organisational (eg, employee turnover, staffing difficulties and compliance with regulations) Outcomes.

As most checklists on diagnostic errors focus on the cognitive contributions to error,20 we further described the cognitive components of included checklists as follows: (1) those that posed a list of differential diagnoses; (2) those that focused on urgent medical conditions; (3) those that included history, physical exam or tests and (4) those that highlighted common diagnostic pitfalls. These categories were created following a prospective review of selected checklists for factors known to reduce diagnostic error. For example, recognising diagnostic pitfalls and systematically narrowing down differential diagnoses are cognitive strategies to reduce diagnostic error.38 39 Given substantial heterogeneity within the included studies, formal metanalysis was not performed.

Checklist effectiveness in reducing diagnostic error

Articles that evaluated and reported outcomes (eg, diagnostic accuracy, number of diagnostic errors and any patient-related outcomes) on checklists effectiveness in reducing diagnostic error were categorised according to their study design and their outcomes. Those checklists were further classified based on inclusion of SEIPS 2.0 components for the purpose of identifying checklist components that may be associated with success or failure in reducing error.

Patient and public involvement

No patient was involved in this study.

Results

Search results and study details

The serial searches yielded 5761 citations, of which 2575 were duplicates and were removed. After title and abstract screening, 69 articles underwent full-text review (1 of which)40 was found in a systematic review.41 Of these 69 articles, a total of 30 met all inclusion criteria. Five articles included more than one checklist. Ten articles included previously published checklists, but in each article, the checklists were evaluated using different study designs. These studies were therefore retained. After excluding duplicate checklists, a total of 25 unique checklists described within 30 articles were examined (figure 1). Within the 30 included articles, 18 formally evaluated and reported outcomes related to checklist use whereas 12 articles featured checklists that were not formally evaluated. Inter-rater agreement for study eligibility for full text review was high (kappa=0.97).

Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Included checklists covered each of the three major framework components of the SEIPS 2.0 model: Work System (n=15 checklists), Processes (n=20) and Outcomes (n=2). Many checklists targeted one (n=13) or two (n=10) framework components; only two checklists targeted all three SEIPS 2.0 components (table 1). Checklists are listed with examples of how their components fit into SEIPS categories in online supplemental Table S2.

Table 1

Categorisation of checklists components based on SEIPS 2.0*

Study ID	Study design	Checklist	Work systems	Processes	Outcomes
Bahrami 200942	Expert opinion	Radiology interpretation checklist for brain	Tasks
Bello 201943	Expert opinion	Radiology interpretation checklist for skull base	Tasks
Chew 201644	Quasi-experimental	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition	Internal environment	Cognitive	Professional
Chew 201766	Quasi-experimental	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition (Chew 2016)	Internal environment	Cognitive	Professional
Chew 201921	Focus groups	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition (Chew 2016)	Internal environment	Cognitive	Professional
Ely 201120	Expert opinion	General debiasing checklist	Tasks	Cognitive
		Ely’s differential diagnosis (DDx) checklists		Cognitive
		Disease-specific cognitive forcing checklist	Tasks	Cognitive
Ely 201561	RCT	Ely’s DDx checklists (Ely 2011)		Cognitive
Ely 201645	Expert opinion	General checklist for mental pause	Internal environment, Tasks, Organisation, Persons	Cognitive	Professional
		Ely’s DDx checklists (Ely 2011)		Cognitive
Graber 201446	Pretest and post-test (interviews/user perception)	Checklist for high-risk diagnostic error	Internal environment, Persons	Cognitive
		Ely’s DDx checklists (Ely 2011)		Cognitive
Hess 2008	Expert opinion	Lower extremity ulcer checklist		Cognitive
Huang 2017	Pretest and post-test, focus groups, chart audits	Diagnostic pause tool	Tasks	Cognitive
Kilian 201962	Pretest and post-test	Mnemonic tool (ACT) meant to elicit diagnostic reflection		Cognitive
Kok 201722	RCT	Chest radiograph interpretation checklist	Tasks	Cognitive
Li 202260	Expert opinion	Checklist of causes of abdominal pain		Cognitive
Lv 202259	Case examples	Checklist of causes of abdominal pain (Li 2022)		Cognitive
Nedorost 201848	Observational and survey	Dermatitis checklist	Tasks	Social and Behavioural
Nickerson 2019	RCT	Electrocardiogram (ECG) syncope checklist		Cognitive
Nordick 202049	Expert opinion	Diagnostic and Reasoning Tool	Tasks	Cognitive
O’Sullivan 201869	Expert opinion	Debiasing checklist		Cognitive
O’Sullivan 201940	RCT	Mnemonic tool (SLOW) meant to slow down reasoning and counter bias		Cognitive
Pan 202156	Retrospective cohort	Abdominal pain checklist and algorithm		Cognitive
Rush 201750	Expert opinion	Mnemonic tool (CARE) meant to counter bias	Tasks	Cognitive, Social and Behavioural
Shimizu 201357	Pretest and post-test	General debiasing checklist (Ely 2011)	Tasks	Cognitive
		Symptom-specific DDx checklist (similar to Ely’s 2011 DDx checklists)		Cognitive
Sibbald 201351	Pretest and post-test	ECG interpretation checklist	Tasks
Sibbald 201352	Pretest and post-test	Checklist for cardiac exam	Tasks
Sibbald 201463	Pretest and post-test	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013–1)	Tasks
Sibbald 201564	RCT	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013–1)	Tasks
Sibbald 201965	RCT	General debiasing checklist (Ely 2011)	Tasks	Cognitive
		ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013–1)	Tasks
Weber 199758	Expert opinion	Checklist for orbital and periorbital swelling		Cognitive
Yung 198353	Expert opinion	Flow chart	Tasks	Cognitive

*The three primary components of SEIPS 2.0 include: Work System (eg, Person (s), Tasks, Internal Environment, External Environment, Tools and Technologies, and Organisation), Processes (eg, Cognitive, Physical, and Social and Behavioural) and Outcomes (eg, Patient, Professional and Organisational).

ACT, Alternatives, Consequences, Traits; CARE, communicate, assess, reconsider, enact; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SEIPS, Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety; SLOW, Sure, Look, Opposite, Worst; TWED, Threat, Wrong/What else, Evidence, Dispositional.

Checklists targeting work systems

Fifteen out of the 25 checklists addressed Work Systems.20 22 42–53 Two of those checklists addressed the Persons subcomponent,45 46 13 addressed Tasks,20 22 42 43 45 47–53 and 3 addressed Internal Environment (table 1).44–46 Notably, no checklists focused on Tools and Technologies, or External Environment. Only one checklist examined factors within Organisation.45 Checklists elements incorporating the Persons subcomponent typically addressed clinicians or patients’ demeanour or attitude during a clinical encounter. For example, Ely’s checklist for mental pause addressed factors such as physician being ‘angry’ or patient being ‘hostile’.45 whereas Graber’s checklist prompted the clinician to consider, ‘is this a patient I don’t like?’.46 Tasks were highlighted in Ely’s general debiasing checklist by prompting clinicians to ‘obtain…medical history’ and ‘perform a…physical exam’.20 Other examples where Tasks are emphasised include Bahrami’s radiology checklist (eg, asking providers to systematically assess different brains areas such as sulci and ventricles),42 Nedorost’s dermatitis checklist (eg, examine for signs of dermatomyositis),48 and Sibbald’s ECG checklist (eg, calculate the rate, check the intervals PR, QRS, QT).51 In contrast, Internal Environment was prominent in Chew’s TWED (Threat, Wrong/What else, Evidence, Dispositional factors) mnemonic (Dispositional factors, such as chaotic, busy work place).44 Finally, the Organisation subcomponent was emphasised in Ely’s general checklist, which asked the clinician about ‘external pressures’ (eg, time pressure), highlighting the impact of workload on clinical decision making.45

Checklists targeting processes framework

Most checklists (n=20) focused on the Cognitive subcomponent of Processes. No checklists addressed the Physical subcomponent and only two checklists addressed the Social and Behavioural subcomponent of Processes (table 1).48 50

Within the Cognitive subcomponent, checklists targeted various cognitive functions. Ten checklists included a list of differential diagnoses.20 22 53–60 For example, Hess’s lower extremity ulcer checklist linked broad areas such as ‘inflammatory disorders’ with related diagnoses: ‘granuloma annulare, necrobiosis lipoidica and pyoderma gangrenosum.’54 Kok’s checklist focused on assisting in radiography interpretation by listing ‘commonly missed diagnoses’ with images including ‘pneumothorax,’ ‘spinal cord compression’ and ‘surgical clips’.22

Six checklists emphasised broadening the history, physical exam or tests to aid in the diagnostic process.20 22 49 53 56 58 For example, Nordick’s Diagnostic and Reasoning Tool checklist contained an annotated flow chart that walks providers through ‘chief complaint,’ ‘history of present illness’ and ‘physical exam’ while providing broad diagnostic questions to consider while performing these steps.49 Similarly, Weber’s checklist for orbital or periorbital cellulitis outlined specific points in the history and physical (eg, ‘onset’ ‘catastrophic (hours))’ and followed by diagnoses in order of likelihood.58

Three checklists specifically pointed out commonly missed diagnoses or diagnostic pitfalls.20 22 61 For example, Ely’s disease-specific differential diagnosis checklist emphasised ‘commonly missed diagnosis’ with an asterisk.20 A disease-specific cognitive forcing checklist from the same paper emphasised common diagnostic pitfalls, such as missed peroneal tendon tear’ and ‘underappreciated ankle instability.’

Three checklists prompted clinicians to consider urgent or emergent conditions.20 44 57 For example, the TWED mnemonic from Chew 2016 includes ‘life-or-limb Threat’ as a cognitive forcing tool to rule out ‘worst-case scenario’s.44 Additionally, the condition-specific differential diagnosis checklist form Shimizu also highlighted ‘do-not-miss-diagnosis’ with a symbol.57

Checklists that addressed the Social and Behavioural subcomponents encouraged person-to-person communication to ensure adequate knowledge transfer. For example, Rush’s CARE mnemonic incorporated ‘C’ to represent ‘Communicate with your team and patient,’ while Nedorost’s checklist prompted physicians to consider ‘framing communication.’48 50

Checklists targeting outcomes

Two checklists target the Outcomes SEIPS 2.0 component,44 45 both of which addressed the Professional outcomes subcomponent (table 1). For example, Chew’s TWED mnemonic has ‘D’ for ‘Dispositional factors’ encompassing ‘emotional—sleepiness, tiredness, anger.’44 No checklists specifically address the Patient or Organisational subcomponents.

Effectiveness of checklists in reducing diagnostic error

Eighteen studies described outcomes related to the use of 14 unique clinical diagnosis checklists. Four of these studies (two pretest and post-test studies,46 47 one survey-based study48 and one study with a focus-group design)21 obtained user feedback when using a checklist. The remaining fourteen, including five pretest and post-test studies,51 52 57 62 63 six randomised controlled trials (RCTs),22 40 55 61 64 65 two quasi-experimental studies44 66 and one retrospective cohort study,56 evaluated whether checklists reduced diagnostic error. The main outcomes reported within those 14 studies included diagnostic accuracy, number of errors, number of abnormalities found on imaging and patient outcomes such as length of stay (tables 2 and 3). Any study-reported statistical significance associated with those outcomes is described in table 3.

Table 3

Categorisation of checklists that did and did not (italics) improve diagnostic error

Study ID	Study design	Checklist	Work systems	Processes	Outcomes
Chew 201644	Quasi-experimental	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition	Internal environment	Cognitive	Professional
Kok 201722	RCT	Chest radiograph interpretation checklist	Tasks	Cognitive
Pan 202156	Retrospective cohort	Abdominal pain checklist and algorithm		Cognitive
Shimizu 201357*	Pretest and post-test	Symptom-specific differential diagnosis (DDx) checklist (similar to Ely’s 2011 DDx checklists)		Cognitive
Sibbald 201351	Pretest and post-test	Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation checklist	Tasks
Sibbald 201352	Pretest and post-test	Checklist for cardiac exam	Tasks
Sibbald 201463	Pretest and post-test	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013)	Tasks
Sibbald 201564	RCT	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013)	Tasks
Chew 2017 66	Quasi-experimental	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition (Chew 2016)	Internal environment	Cognitive	Professional
Ely 2015 61	RCT	Ely’s DDx checklists (Ely 2011)		Cognitive
Kilian 2019 62	Pretest and post-test	Mnemonic tool (ACT) meant to elicit diagnostic reflection		Cognitive
Nickerson 2019	RCT	ECG syncope checklist		Cognitive
O’Sullivan 2019 40	RCT	Mnemonic tool (SLOW) meant to slow down reasoning and counter bias		Cognitive
Shimizu 2013 57 *	Pretest and post-test	General debiasing checklist (Ely 2011)	Tasks	Cognitive
Sibbald 2019 65	RCT	General debiasing checklist (Ely 2011)	Tasks	Cognitive
		ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013)	Tasks

*Shimizu et al reported outcomes on two different checklists, one that demonstrated improvement in diagnostic error and one that did not.

ACT, Alternatives, Consequences, Traits; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SLOW, Sure, Look, Opposite, Worst; TWED, Threat, Wrong/What else, Evidence, Dispositional.

Four of the five pretest and post-test studies reported significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy with their checklists (tables 2 and 3).51 52 57 63 For example, Sibbald’s study using an ECG interpretation checklist reported a reduction in errors from 279 to 70 following implementation of the checklist (p=0.01).51 In another study of the ECG interpretation checklist by Sibbald, an average of 1.6 mistakes on ECG interpretation were fixed with checklist use (p=0.001).63 Sibbald’s cardiac exam checklist reported 51% accuracy with checklist use vs 46% diagnostic accuracy without (p=0.04)52; and Shimizu’s symptom-specific checklists reported 67% diagnostic accuracy with the checklist vs 60% without (p<0.05).57 One study (Kilian’s ACT mnemonic) reported no significant improvements in postchecklist diagnostic accuracy.62

Only two of the six RCTs included in our review reported significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy. For example, Kok’s radiograph interpretation checklist assisted clinicians in finding 50.1% of abnormalities on X-rays with multiple abnormalities, compared with 41.9% when the checklist was not used (p=0.04).22 Sibbald’s ECG interpretation and diagnostic pause checklist reported that 27% of ECG interpretation errors were corrected with checklist use, vs only 4% without use (p=0.01).64 Four of the six RCTs did not demonstrate significant reduction in diagnostic errors.40 55 61 65

Of the quasi-experimental studies, Chew’s TWED checklist tested diagnostic accuracy using five case scenarios and reported higher scores (18.5 vs 12.5 out of 50, p=0.001) with use of the checklist.44 However, a similar study using 10 case scenarios showed no improvement in diagnostic accuracy.66 Finally, Pan’s retrospective cohort study assessing an abdominal pain checklist demonstrated significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy with checklist use (94.8% vs 82% diagnostic accuracy, p=0.034, in one subgroup; and 95.3% vs 86%, p=0.001 in another subgroup).56

Within the 14 studies testing checklists, most checklists targeted the Cognitive subcomponent (n=10)22 40 44 55–57 61 62 65 66 followed by Tasks (n=7)22 51 52 57 63–65 (table 3). Two studies targeted the Internal Environment and the Professional Outcomes subcomponents.44 66 None of the included checklists targeted the Persons, External Environment, Tools and Technology, Organisation, Physical or Social and Behavioural subcomponents. Though the Cognitive subcomponent was the most emphasised, only four out of the 10 studies demonstrated reduction in diagnostic error,22 44 56 57 with 1 of those four studies showing mixed results (ie, 1 checklist demonstrating reduction in diagnostic error and another failing to reduce error).57 Conversely, five out of the seven studies targeting Tasks demonstrated significant reduction in diagnostic error (table 3).22 51 52 63 64 In examination of the four unique checklists included in the seven studies targeting Tasks, three checklists were found to reduce diagnostic error,22 51 52 (though one failed to reduce diagnostic error in one study,65 but was shown to reduce diagnostic error in several other studies),51 63 64 and one checklist failed to reduce diagnostic error (table 3).57

Quality assessment

Three of the six RCTs were at ‘Low Risk’ of bias,22 55 64 while the other three RCTs had ‘Some Concerns’.40 61 65 The two quasi experimental studies were found to be at ‘Low Risk’ of study bias (online supplemental Table S3).44 66

Out of the five pre–post studies, two were rated as ‘good’ quality’,52 63 two were found to be ‘fair,’51 57 and one was rated as ‘poor’ quality.62 Finally, Pan’s retrospective cohort was assessed to be ‘good quality’56 (online supplemental Table S3).

Discussion

Reducing diagnostic error is of paramount importance in medicine as it is a significant, yet preventable, source of mortality. Prior reviews on interventions intended to reduce diagnostic error describe cognitive and system-related interventions, but included small numbers of published clinical diagnosis checklists in this field.67 68 Since then, a plethora of additional studies targeting diagnostic error using checklists have been published. Despite this fact, the importance of checklists within the realm of diagnostic error remains unclear. In this study, we included 30 studies and 25 unique checklists, characterised each checklist based on SEIPS 2.0 framework, and assessed which human factors may have a role in influencing diagnostic errors. The cognitive subcomponent of SEIPS 2.0 was targeted most frequently (20 checklists), followed by tasks (13 checklists). Other SEIPS 2.0 subcomponents were either minimally or not at all represented. When examining efficacy, checklists targeting Tasks appeared to be most associated with reductions in diagnostic errors. Taken together, these findings highlight an opportunity to further examine the effect of task-based checklists on diagnostic error. In addition, other human factors subcomponents (eg, Persons, External Environment, Tools and Technology, Organisation, Physical, or Social and Behavioural) remain unaddressed in available checklists, suggesting that more research in these areas is necessary.

Although promising, the notion that diagnostic checklists can help improve diagnostic safety has come under scrutiny.15 Sceptics suggest that, unlike other successful patient safety checklists that target specific tasks of execution (eg, procedure time-out checklists), diagnostic safety checklists are too broad or nonspecific when they target cognitive processes.15 19 Furthermore, diagnostic checklists may be unable to provide sufficient content assistance to help with errors of planning, and may have potential negative effects, such as added time pressure and risk of overdiagnosis.19 Lack of a clear link between diagnostic checklists and reduction in errors may also represent limitations with study design and quality. Indeed, when examining risk of study bias, half of the RCTs (n=3) included in this review were rated as having ‘Some Concerns’, due to differences in baseline characteristics or limitations in the analyses to estimate the effect of the checklist intervention. In addition, three of the five pre–post test studies were rated as either ‘fair’ or ‘poor’, due to lack of clear selection criteria of study population, the sample being insufficient, or otherwise not representative of the general population (online supplemental Table S1). Furthermore, most checklists were tested in a non-clinical ‘experimental’ setting, limiting applicability to the clinical realm.

Our systematic review is an important step forward in understanding the current state of checklists and advances the science in several ways. First, the finding that task-based checklists perform better suggests promise for this approach in domains where critical sequential steps (eg, interpreting ECGs and radiographic images) are needed. Larger scale implementation of these tools using rigorous study designs is therefore important. Second, the fact that only a few studies that used cognitive checklists led to improved diagnosis argues that attempts to inform complex, multifaceted decisions via a rigid checklist may not be possible. Third, we found that multiple aspects relevant to diagnosis including Tools, Technology, and External Environment Work Systems, Physical Processes, and Patient and Organisational Outcomes were not targeted by current checklists. Future iterations of checklists in diagnostic errors may explore these areas to enhance effectiveness. For example, should efforts to curb diagnostic error at the clinician level be coupled with interventions targeting hospital leadership or the environment in which clinicians work? If so, how might checklists be helpful in those domains?

Our review has limitations. First, while the human factors framework (SEIPS 2.0) is broad and inclusive in its categorisation, elements not included in this structure may also be important in evaluating diagnostic checklists. Furthermore, components of SEIPS 2.0 have not been tested or validated in the setting of clinical diagnosis; therefore, our findings should be viewed as preliminary and hypothesis generating for future evaluations. Second, while all authors were involved in categorising the checklists’ content according to SEIPS 2.0 as objectively as possible, the categorisation process was inherently subjective. Different reviewers may come up with different categorisations. Third, many of the included checklists were not formally evaluated to determine their impact on diagnosis outcomes. While inclusion of these pre-evaluative studies allows for a more comprehensive review, studies implementing these checklists are needed and may influence our findings.

The findings of our review should spur investigators interested in addressing diagnostic error to focus checklist-based research in specific ways. Specifically, greater focus on task-based checklists appears warranted. Such approach may prioritise focusing on stepwise strategies in evaluating clinical data over the differential diagnosis of such data, such as stepwise approach to reading ECGs or chest X-rays, or evaluating a rash. Additionally, broadening checklist-based research to include unaddressed SEIPS 2.0 areas, such as the Environment, and Tools and Technologies appears necessary. These types of studies may help advance the discovery of novel opportunities, reduce error, and improve effectiveness of diagnosis.

Conclusion

Checklists could hold great potential to reduce clinical diagnostic error; therefore, a comprehensive understanding of their landscape is crucial for further development. Organisation of checklists by the SEIPS 2.0 is highly illustrative of the current state-highlighting areas of strength of current checklists as well as blind spots that remain poorly addressed. Generally, current published checklists emphasise very few SEIPS 2.0 elements, mainly the Task and Cognitive subcomponents, while leaving others entirely unused. Tasks-focused checklists seem to be more associated with a significant reduction in diagnostic error. Understanding the impact of incorporating less explored SEIPS 2.0 subcomponents within checklists for diagnostic error warrants evaluation. Further, studies examining the ability of task-oriented checklists to reduce diagnostic error may ultimately facilitate improved diagnosis.

Table 2

Characteristics of studies evaluating effectiveness of checklists

Study ID	Checklist	Participants	Setting	Outcome
Chew 2016	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition	Medical Students	Experimental	Checklist group scored significantly higher on a five-case scenario test compared with control group without the checklist (18.50 vs 12.50, respectively)
Chew 2017	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition	Medical Students	Experimental	No significant difference with or without the checklist in a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases with three response items per case. There was only a significant difference in the checklist group score when looking at the first 5 cases compared with the group without the checklist (9.15 vs 8.18, respectively).
Chew 2019	Mnemonic tool (TWED) meant to facilitate metacognition	Medical Students and Medical Doctors	Clinical	Findings from four separate focus groups suggest that the TWED mnemonic was easy to use and effective in promoting metacognition.
Ely 2015	Ely’s differential diagnosis (DDx) checklists (Ely 2011)	Primary Care Physicians	Clinical	No significant difference in diagnostic error rate between physicians using checklist and those not (11.2% and 17.8% respectively), but checklist did prompt consideration of a greater number of diagnoses per patient (6.5 with checklist vs 3.4 without).
Graber 2014	Checklist for high-risk diagnostic error	Emergency Room Physicians	Clinical	Interviews demonstrated that the majority of checklist use was to help confirm original considerations and had no major impact on the final diagnosis (only 10% of usages resulted in change to the working diagnosis). One-third of usages prompted consideration of novel diagnoses.
	Ely’s DDx checklists (Ely 2011)	Emergency Room Physicians	Clinical
Huang 2017	Diagnostic pause tool	Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners	Clinical	Diagnostic pause evoked new diagnostic actions in 13% of alerts and resulted in 13% of alerted cases showing diagnostic discrepancies at a 6 month chart audit. Participants reported good integration and minimal interruption of using tool.
Kilian 201962	Mnemonic tool (ACT) meant to elicit diagnostic reflection	Emergency Medicine Residents	Experimental	Emergency medicine residence reviewing eight vignettes altered their provisional diagnosis 13% after using the ACT checklist; however, this did not demonstrate any change in diagnostic error between the provisional diagnosis and the post-checklist diagnosis.
Kok 201722	Chest radiograph interpretation checklist	Medical Students	Experimental	Medical students using the checklist found more abnormalities on chest radiographs with multiple abnormalities (50.1%) compared with the group without the checklist (41.9%). Of note, there was no difference between groups in images containing no abnormalities or a single abnormality.
Nedorost 201848	Dermatitis checklist	Dermatologist (Principal Investigator)	Clinical	Surveys were used to gauge clinician experience after using the checklist. 8 of 15 clinicians surveyed indicated increased efficiency of diagnostic work-up. 10 patients were shown the checklist and in 6 of these instances clinicians reported improved patient engagement. In at least 2 cases, checklist lead to definitive diagnosis on the first visit.
Nickerson 2019	Electrocardiogram (ECG) syncope checklist	Emergency Medicine Residents	Experimental	No significant difference (p=0.19) was found in overall score of residents who read the ECGs with the checklists (median score 7.2; SD 1.4) vs those who read without the checklist (median score 6.8; SD 1.6). There were some significant improvements with checklist use in post-hoc assessment of recognition of Brugada, long QT, heart block and hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) in the ECG readings. Checklist group was more likely to overread normal ECGs as abnormal.
O’Sullivan 201940	Mnemonic (SLOW) meant to slow down reasoning and counter bias	Medical Professionals	Experimental	No significant difference in error rates between checklist and non-checklist groups (2.8 and 3.1 cases correct respectively out of 10 cases total).
Pan 202156	Abdominal pain checklist and algorithm	Deputy Chief Physicians	Clinical	Retrospectively, diagnostic outcomes were assessed for patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with acute abdominal pain for the first time. Cases that were seen using the checklist were placed in the “processes thinking group” while all others went to the “traditional group.” It was found that for hospitalised patients (emergency level 2 and 3) in the processes thinking group there was a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy as well as patient outcomes and a reduction in length of stay and average hospital expenses.
Shimizu 201357	General debiasing checklist (Ely 2011)	Medical Students	Experimental	Medical students significantly increased their average proportion of correct diagnosis in five case scenarios after using the Differential Diagnosis Checklist (67% correct) compared with initial diagnosis before any checklist (60% correct) even if they had used the Debiasing Checklist beforehand. There was no statistically significance between initial diagnosis and after use of the Debiasing Checklist (62% correct).
	Symptom-specific DDx checklist (similar to Ely’s 2011 DDx checklists)	Medical Students	Experimental
Sibbald 201351	ECG interpretation checklist	Cardiology Fellows	Experimental	Checklist use resulted in a statistically significant lower error rate of 0.39 per ECG interpreted compared with 1.04 without checklist. Use also increased average interpretation and verification time (94 s vs 83 s without) but did not affect surveyed cognitive load.
Sibbald 201352	Checklist for cardiac exam	Medical Students	Experimental	Statistically significant increase in diagnostic accuracy pre-checklist (46%) compared with post-checklist (51%) in the setting of examining a cardiac simulator; however, this benefit was restricted to residents that were allowed to re-examine the simulator while using the checklist.
Sibbald 201463	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013–1)	Medical Students, Internal Medicine Residents, and Cardiology Fellows	Experimental	Participants pre-checklist made an average of 2.9 errors per ECG. After using the checklist participants fixed a statistically significant mean number of 1.6 mistakes.
Sibbald 201564	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013–1)	Cardiology Residents	Experimental	Checklist use was associated with higher error correction compared with an analytic prompt (0.27 errors corrected per ECG vs 0.04 respectively) as well as greater scrutiny of key variables of the ECG as found per eye-tracking.
Sibbald 201965	General checklist targeting bias (Ely 2011)	Emergency Medicine Residents, Internal Medicine Residents and Cardiology Fellows	Experimental	No significant difference of error rates between content-specific checklist, process-focused checklist and no checklist groups when interpreting 20 ECGs even when cognitive biases were incorporated into cases.
	ECG interpretation checklist (Sibbald 2013–1)	Emergency Medicine Residents, Internal Medicine Residents and Cardiology Fellows	Experimental

ACT, Alternatives, Consequences, Traits; SLOW, Sure, Look, Opposite, Worst; TWED, Threat, Wrong/What else, Evidence, Dispositional.