Search

Background: Symptom checkers are clinical decision support apps for patients, used by tens of millions of people annually. They are designed to provide diagnostic and triage advice and assist users in seeking the appropriate level of care. Little evidence is available regarding their diagnostic and triage accuracy with direct use by patients for urgent conditions., Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy and usability of a symptom checker in use by patients presenting to an emergency department (ED)., Methods: We recruited a convenience sample of English-speaking patients presenting for care in an urban ED. Each consenting patient used a leading symptom checker from Ada Health before the ED evaluation. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by comparing the symptom checker's diagnoses and those of 3 independent emergency physicians viewing the patient-entered symptom data, with the final diagnoses from the ED evaluation. The Ada diagnoses and triage were also critiqued by the independent physicians. The patients completed a usability survey based on the Technology Acceptance Model., Results: A total of 40 (80%) of the 50 participants approached completed the symptom checker assessment and usability survey. Their mean age was 39.3 (SD 15.9; range 18-76) years, and they were 65% (26/40) female, 68% (27/40) White, 48% (19/40) Hispanic or Latino, and 13% (5/40) Black or African American. Some cases had missing data or a lack of a clear ED diagnosis; 75% (30/40) were included in the analysis of diagnosis, and 93% (37/40) for triage. The sensitivity for at least one of the final ED diagnoses by Ada (based on its top 5 diagnoses) was 70% (95% CI 54%-86%), close to the mean sensitivity for the 3 physicians (on their top 3 diagnoses) of 68.9%. The physicians rated the Ada triage decisions as 62% (23/37) fully agree and 24% (9/37) safe but too cautious. It was rated as unsafe and too risky in 22% (8/37) of cases by at least one physician, in 14% (5/37) of cases by at least two physicians, and in 5% (2/37) of cases by all 3 physicians. Usability was rated highly; participants agreed or strongly agreed with the 7 Technology Acceptance Model usability questions with a mean score of 84.6%, although "satisfaction" and "enjoyment" were rated low., Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that a symptom checker can provide acceptable usability and diagnostic accuracy for patients with various urgent conditions. A total of 14% (5/37) of symptom checker triage recommendations were deemed unsafe and too risky by at least two physicians based on the symptoms recorded, similar to the results of studies on telephone and nurse triage. Larger studies are needed of diagnosis and triage performance with direct patient use in different clinical environments., (©Hamish S F Fraser, Gregory Cohan, Christopher Koehler, Jared Anderson, Alexis Lawrence, John Pateña, Ian Bacher, Megan L Ranney. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 19.09.2022.)

The opioid epidemic has renewed debate about how to structure laws, agency policies and hospital protocols for mandatory reporting of illicit substances during pregnancy. This paper analyzes the ethics of Rhode Island's approach to mandatory reporting - in particular, reporting of positive maternal and newborn drug tests at time of delivery. Given that state intervention is generally perceived by pregnant people as punitive and threatening to their family, we consider how four elements often used to justify punitive action by the state - retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation (societal protection) - apply to Rhode Island's policy and approach to prenatal substance use. In addition, the paper considers the equity implications of Rhode Island's approach. It concludes that, given the potential for the policy to do more harm than good, investment of resources would be better spent on clinical and community services that support substance using parents and their newborns.