Prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic Error in the Critically Ill: A Hidden Epidemic?

Epidemiologic studies of diagnostic error in the intensive care unit (ICU) consist mostly of descriptive autopsy series. In these studies, rates of diagnostic errors are approximately 5% to 10%. Recently validated methods for retrospectively measuring error have expanded our understanding of the scope of the problem. These alternative measurement strategies have yielded similar estimates for the frequency of diagnostic error in the ICU. Although there is a fair understanding of the frequency of errors, further research is needed to better define the risk factors for diagnostic error in the ICU.

Diagnostic Errors Are Common in Acute Pediatric Respiratory Disease: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Multicenter Diagnostic Accuracy Study in Australian Emergency Departments

Background: Diagnostic errors are a global health priority and a common cause of preventable harm. There is limited data available for the prevalence of misdiagnosis in pediatric acute-care settings. Respiratory illnesses, which are particularly challenging to diagnose, are the most frequent reason for presentation to pediatric emergency departments. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department clinicians in diagnosing acute childhood respiratory diseases, as compared with expert panel consensus (reference standard). Methods: Prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, diagnostic accuracy study in two well-resourced pediatric emergency departments in a large Australian city. Between September 2016 and August 2018, a convenience sample of children aged 29 days to 12 years who presented with respiratory symptoms was enrolled. The emergency department discharge diagnoses were reported by clinicians based upon standard clinical diagnostic definitions. These diagnoses were compared against consensus diagnoses given by an expert panel of pediatric specialists using standardized disease definitions after they reviewed all medical records. Results: For 620 participants, the sensitivity and specificity (%, [95% CI]) of the emergency department compared with the expert panel diagnoses were generally poor: isolated upper respiratory tract disease (64.9 [54.6, 74.4], 91.0 [88.2, 93.3]), croup (76.8 [66.2, 85.4], 97.9 [96.2, 98.9]), lower respiratory tract disease (86.6 [83.1, 89.6], 92.9 [87.6, 96.4]), bronchiolitis (66.9 [58.6, 74.5], 94.3 [80.8, 99.3]), asthma/reactive airway disease (91.0 [85.8, 94.8], 93.0 [90.1, 95.3]), clinical pneumonia (63·9 [50.6, 75·8], 95·0 [92·8, 96·7]), focal (consolidative) pneumonia (54·8 [38·7, 70·2], 86.2 [79.3, 91.5]). Only 59% of chest x-rays with consolidation were correctly identified. Between 6.9 and 14.5% of children were inappropriately prescribed based on their eventual diagnosis. Conclusion: In well-resourced emergency departments, we have identified a previously unrecognized high diagnostic error rate for acute childhood respiratory disorders, particularly in pneumonia and bronchiolitis. These errors lead to the potential of avoidable harm and the administration of inappropriate treatment.

Should electronic differential diagnosis support be used early or late in the diagnostic process? A multicentre experimental study of Isabel

Background

Diagnostic errors unfortunately remain common. Electronic differential diagnostic support (EDS) systems may help, but it is unclear when and how they ought to be integrated into the diagnostic process.

Objective

To explore how much EDS improves diagnostic accuracy, and whether EDS should be used early or late in the diagnostic process.

Setting

6 Canadian medical schools. A volunteer sample of 67 medical students, 62 residents in internal medicine or emergency medicine, and 61 practising internists or emergency medicine physicians were recruited in May through June 2020.

Intervention

Participants were randomised to make use of EDS either early (after the chief complaint) or late (after the complete history and physical is available) in the diagnostic process while solving each of 16 written cases. For each case, we measured the number of diagnoses proposed in the differential diagnosis and how often the correct diagnosis was present within the differential.

Results

EDS increased the number of diagnostic hypotheses by 2.32 (95% CI 2.10 to 2.49) when used early in the process and 0.89 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.10) when used late in the process (both p<0.001). Both early and late use of EDS increased the likelihood of the correct diagnosis being present in the differential (7% and 8%, respectively, both p<0.001). Whereas early use increased the number of diagnostic hypotheses (most notably for students and residents), late use increased the likelihood of the correct diagnosis being present in the differential regardless of one’s experience level.

Conclusions and relevance

EDS increased the number of diagnostic hypotheses and the likelihood of the correct diagnosis appearing in the differential, and these effects persisted irrespective of whether EDS was used early or late in the diagnostic process.

Advancing Diagnostic Safety Research: Results of a Systematic Research Priority Setting Exercise

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors are a major source of preventable harm but the science of reducing them remains underdeveloped.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and prioritize research questions to advance the field of diagnostic safety in the next 5 years.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-seven researchers and 42 stakeholders were involved in the identification of the research priorities.

DESIGN

We used systematic prioritization methods based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology. We first invited a large international group of expert researchers in various disciplines to submit research questions while considering five prioritization criteria: (1) usefulness, (2) answerability, (3) effectiveness, (4) potential for translation, and (5) maximal potential for effect on diagnostic safety. After consolidation, these questions were prioritized at an in-person expert meeting in April 2019. Top-ranked questions were subsequently reprioritized through scoring on the five prioritization criteria using an online questionnaire. We also invited non-research stakeholders to assign weights to the five criteria and then used these weights to adjust the final prioritization score for each question.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 207 invited researchers, 97 researchers responded and 78 submitted 333 research questions which were then consolidated. Expert meeting participants (n = 21) discussed questions in different breakout sessions and prioritized 50, which were subsequently reduced to the top 20 using the online questionnaire. The top 20 questions addressed mostly system factors (e.g., implementation and evaluation of information technologies), teamwork factors (e.g., role of nurses and other health professionals in the diagnostic process), and strategies to engage patients in the diagnostic process.

CONCLUSIONS

Top research priorities for advancing diagnostic safety in the short-term include strengthening systems and teams and engaging patients to support diagnosis. High-priority areas identified using these systematic methods can inform an actionable research agenda for reducing preventable diagnostic harm.

nalyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach

OBJECTIVES

We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error.

METHODS

Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process.

RESULTS

Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in "Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up" and "Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment" process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.

Stroke hospitalization after misdiagnosis of "benign dizziness" is lower in specialty care than general practice: a population-based cohort analysis of missed stroke using SPADE methods

OBJECTIVES

Isolated dizziness is a challenging stroke presentation in the emergency department, but little is known about this problem in other clinical settings. We sought to compare stroke hospitalizations after treat-and-release clinic visits for purportedly "benign dizziness" between general and specialty care settings.

METHODS

This was a population-based retrospective cohort study from a national database. We included clinic patients with a first incident treat-and-release visit diagnosis of non-specific dizziness/vertigo or a peripheral vestibular disorder (ICD-9-CM 780.4 or 386.x [not 386.2]). We compared general care (internal medicine, family medicine) vs. specialty care (neurology, otolaryngology) providers. We used propensity scores to control for baseline stroke risk differences unrelated to dizziness diagnosis. We measured excess (observed>expected) stroke hospitalizations in the first 30 d (i.e., missed strokes associated with an adverse event).

RESULTS

We analyzed 144,355 patients discharged with "benign dizziness" (n=117,117 diagnosed in general care; n=27,238 in specialty care). After propensity score matching, patients in both groups were at higher risk of stroke in the first 30 d (rate difference per 10,000 treat-and-release visits for "benign dizziness" 24.9 [95% CI 18.6-31.2] in general care and 10.6 [95% CI 6.3-14.9] in specialty care). Short-term stroke risk was higher in general care than specialty care (relative risk, RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.2) while the long-term risk was not significantly different (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.9), indicating higher misdiagnosis-related harms among dizzy patients who initially presented to generalists after adequate propensity matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Missed stroke-related harms in general care were roughly twice that in specialty care. Solutions are needed to address this care gap.

Challenges in diagnosis of limited granulomatosis with polyangiitis

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) is an orphan disease with multifaceted clinical presentations and delayed diagnosis. Given the risks of delayed diagnosis and treatment, improving clinicians' awareness of atypical course of this disease is critically important. The aim of this report is to analyze a case of delayed diagnosis of GPA in view of similar publications. We analyzed articles retrieved from Scopus and MEDLINE/PubMed. The following keywords were used: "granulomatosis with polyangiitis", "Wegener granulomatosis", and "diagnostic errors". All case studies that fulfilled the Chapel Hill Consensus Conference and the American College of Rheumatology GPA criteria were retrieved. We report a 71-year-old female patient with a facial defect in the nasal region, nasal congestion, and serosanguineous discharge. Her final diagnosis of GPA was reached after a series of incorrect diagnoses in the past 40 years. A deforming facial lesion developed during this period of uncertainty and absence of appropriate treatment. This patient presented with atypical features of laboratory and instrumental examinations. Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) were negative, while rheumatoid factor (RF; 46.3 IU/mL) and anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA; 25.6 IU/mL) were elevated. The histological analysis of the nasal mucous membrane specimen did not indicate definite signs of vasculitis. However, it revealed a granuloma with aggregation of macrophages and massive infiltration of lymphocytes, ruling out previous diagnosis of carcinoma. We analyzed delayed diagnosis of GPA in our patient in the context of 12 previously reported similar cases of limited form of GPA. We emphasize the importance of histological examination for differential diagnosis of GPA.

Consensus statement on the content of clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education

INTRODUCTION

Effective clinical reasoning is required for safe patient care. Students and postgraduate trainees largely learn the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for effective clinical reasoning implicitly, through experience and apprenticeship. There is a growing consensus that medical schools should teach clinical reasoning in a way that is explicitly integrated into courses throughout each year, adopting a systematic approach consistent with current evidence. However, the clinical reasoning literature is 'fragmented' and can be difficult for medical educators to access. The purpose of this paper is to provide practical recommendations that will be of use to all medical schools.

METHODS

Members of the UK Clinical Reasoning in Medical Education group (CReME) met to discuss what clinical reasoning-specific teaching should be delivered by medical schools (what to teach). A literature review was conducted to identify what teaching strategies are successful in improving clinical reasoning ability among medical students (how to teach). A consensus statement was then produced based on the agreed ideas and the literature review, discussed by members of the consensus statement group, then edited and agreed by the authors.

RESULTS

The group identified 30 consensus ideas that were grouped into five domains: (1) clinical reasoning concepts, (2) history and physical examination, (3) choosing and interpreting diagnostic tests, (4) problem identification and management, and (5) shared decision making. The literature review demonstrated a lack of effectiveness for teaching the general thinking processes involved in clinical reasoning, whereas specific teaching strategies aimed at building knowledge and understanding led to improvements. These strategies are synthesised and described.

CONCLUSION

What is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught can facilitate clinical reasoning development more effectively through purposeful curriculum design and medical schools should consider implementing a formal clinical reasoning curriculum that is horizontally and vertically integrated throughout the programme.

Current Challenges in Diagnosis of Venous Thromboembolism

In patients with suspected venous thromboembolism, the goal is to accurately and rapidly identify those with and without thrombosis. Failure to diagnose venous thromboembolism (VTE) can lead to fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), and unnecessary anticoagulation can cause avoidable bleeding. The adoption of a structured approach to VTE diagnosis, that includes clinical prediction rules, D-dimer testing and non-invasive imaging modalities, has enabled rapid, cost-effective and accurate VTE diagnosis, but problems still persist. First, with increased reliance on imaging and widespread use of sensitive multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanners, there is a potential for overdiagnosis of VTE. Second, the optimal strategy for diagnosing recurrent leg deep venous thrombosis remains unclear as is that for venous thrombosis at unusual sites. Third, the conventional diagnostic approach is inefficient in that it is unable to exclude VTE in high-risk patients. In this review, we outline pragmatic approaches for the clinician faced with difficult VTE diagnostic cases. In addition to discussing the principles of the current diagnostic framework, we explore the diagnostic approach to recurrent VTE, isolated distal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pregnancy associated VTE, subsegmental PE, and VTE diagnosis in complex medical patients (including those with impaired renal function).