An Operational Framework to Study Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments: Findings From A Consensus Panel

Refining a Framework to Enhance Communication in the Emergency Department During the Diagnostic Process: An eDelphi Approach

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) are susceptible to diagnostic error. Suboptimal communication between the patient and the interdisciplinary care team increases risk to diagnostic safety. The role of communication remains underrepresented in existing diagnostic decision-making conceptual models.

METHODS

The authors used eDelphi methodology, whereby data are collected electronically, to achieve consensus among an expert panel of 18 clinicians, patients, family members, and other participants on a refined ED-based diagnostic decision-making framework that integrates several potential opportunities for communication to enhance diagnostic quality. This study examined the entire diagnostic process in the ED, from prehospital to discharge or transfer to inpatient care, and identified where communication breakdowns could occur. After four iterative rounds of the eDelphi process, including a final validation round by all participants, the project's a priori consensus threshold of 80% agreement was reached.

RESULTS

The authors developed a final framework that positions communication more prominently in the diagnostic process in the ED and enhances the original National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and ED-adapted NASEM frameworks. Specific points in the ED journey were identified where more attention to communication might be helpful. Two specific types of communication-information exchange and shared understanding-were identified as high priority for optimal outcomes. Ideas for communication-focused interventions to prevent diagnostic error in the ED fell into three categories: patient-facing, clinician-facing, and system-facing interventions.

CONCLUSION

This project's refinement of the NASEM framework adapted to the ED can be used to develop communications-focused interventions to reduce diagnostic error in this highly complex and error-prone setting.

Frontline Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Improving Diagnostic Safety in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have described the insights of frontline health care providers and patients on how the diagnostic process can be improved in the emergency department (ED), a setting at high risk for diagnostic errors. The authors aimed to identify the perspectives of providers and patients on the diagnostic process and identify potential interventions to improve diagnostic safety.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 ED physicians, 15 ED nurses, and 9 patients/caregivers at two separate health systems. Interview questions were guided by the ED-Adapted National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Diagnostic Process Framework and explored participant perspectives on the ED diagnostic process, identified vulnerabilities, and solicited interventions to improve diagnostic safety. The authors performed qualitative thematic analysis on transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

The research team categorized vulnerabilities in the diagnostic process and intervention opportunities based on the ED-Adapted Framework into five domains: (1) team dynamics and communication (for example, suboptimal communication between referring physicians and the ED team); (2) information gathering related to patient presentation (for example, obtaining the history from the patients or their caregivers; (3) ED organization, system, and processes (for example, staff schedules and handoffs); (4) patient education and self-management (for example, patient education at discharge from the ED); and (5) electronic health record and patient portal use (for example, automatic release of test results into the patient portal). The authors identified 33 potential interventions, of which 17 were provider focused and 16 were patient focused.

CONCLUSION

Frontline providers and patients identified several vulnerabilities and potential interventions to improve ED diagnostic safety. Refining, implementing, and evaluating the efficacy of these interventions are required.

Misdiagnosis of Acute Appendicitis Cases in the Emergency Room

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most frequent surgical emergencies, especially in pediatric populations, with its misdiagnosis in emergency settings presenting significant health risks. This misdiagnosis leads to various complications, such as delayed treatment or unnecessary surgeries. Factors such as age, gender, and comorbidities contribute to diagnostic errors, leading to complications such as peritonitis and increased negative appendectomy rates. This underscores the importance of accurate clinical assessment and awareness of common pitfalls, such as cognitive biases and over-reliance on laboratory tests. This review delves into the prevalence of AA misdiagnosis, its health burden, and the challenges inherent in the diagnostic process. It scrutinizes the effectiveness of different diagnostic approaches, including clinical assessment and imaging techniques. The treatment paradigms for AA are also explored, focusing on surgical interventions and the potential of conservative treatments using antibiotics. The review underscores the criticality of precise diagnosis in preventing adverse outcomes and ensuring effective treatment.

Comparing skin surface temperature to clinical documentation of skin warmth in emergency department patients diagnosed with cellulitis

Objective

To compare clinical documentation of skin warmth to patient report and quantitative skin surface temperatures of patients diagnosed with cellulitis in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

Adult patients (≥18 years) presenting to the ED with an acute complaint involving visible erythema of the lower extremity were prospectively enrolled. Those diagnosed with cellulitis were included in this analysis. Participant report of skin warmth was recorded and skin surface temperature values were obtained from the affected and corresponding unaffected area of skin using thermal cameras. Average temperature (Tavg) was extracted from each image and the difference in Tavg between the affected and unaffected limb was calculated (Tgradient). Clinical documentation of skin warmth was compared to patient report and measured skin warmth (Tgradient >0°C).

Results

Among 126 participants diagnosed with cellulitis, 110 (87%) exhibited objective warmth (Tgradient >0°C) and 58 (53%) of these cases had warmth documented in the physical examination. Of those with objective warmth, 86 (78%) self-reported warmth and 7 (6%) had warmth documented in their history of present illness (HPI) (difference = 72%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 62%-82%; P < 0.001). A significant difference was observed for Tavg affected when warmth was documented (32.1°C) versus not documented (31.0°C) in the physical examination (difference = 1.1°C, 95% CI: 0.29-1.94; P = 0.0083). No association was found between Tgradient and patient-reported or HPI-documented warmth.

Conclusions

The majority of ED-diagnosed cellulitis exhibited objective warmth, yet significant discordance was observed between patient-reported, clinician-documented, and measured warmth. This raises concerns over inadequate documentation practices and/or the poor sensitivity of touch as a reliable means to assess skin surface temperature. Introduction of objective temperature measurement tools could reduce subjectivity in the assessment of warmth in patients with suspected cellulitis.

Emergency medicine physicians' perspectives on diagnostic accuracy in neurology: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

We sought to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of emergency medicine (EM) physicians towards non-specific neurological conditions and the use of clinical decision support (CDS) to improve diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews of EM physicians at four emergency departments (EDs) affiliated with a single US healthcare system. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Conventional content analysis was used to identify themes related to EM physicians' perspectives on acute diagnostic neurology; directed content analysis was used to explore views regarding CDS. Each interview transcript was independently coded by two researchers using an iteratively refined codebook with consensus-based resolution of coding differences.

RESULTS

We identified two domains regarding diagnostic safety: (1) challenges unique to neurological complaints and (2) challenges in EM more broadly. Themes relevant to neurology included: (1) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (2) skepticism about neurology, (3) comfort with basic as opposed to detailed neurological examination, and (4) comfort with non-neurological diseases. Themes relevant to diagnostic decision making in the ED included: (1) cognitive biases, (2) ED system/environmental issues, (3) patient barriers, (4) comfort with diagnostic uncertainty, and (5) concerns regarding diagnostic error identification and measurement. Most participating EM physicians were enthusiastic about the potential for well-designed CDS to improve diagnostic accuracy for non-specific neurological complaints.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians identified diagnostic challenges unique to neurological diseases as well as issues related more generally to diagnostic accuracy in EM. These physician-reported issues should be accounted for when designing interventions to improve ED diagnostic accuracy.

Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human-human and human-system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings.

Development of a rubric for assessing delayed diagnosis of appendicitis, diabetic ketoacidosis and sepsis

OBJECTIVES

Using case review to determine whether a patient experienced a delayed diagnosis is challenging. Measurement would be more accurate if case reviewers had access to multi-expert consensus on grading the likelihood of delayed diagnosis. Our objective was to use expert consensus to create a guide for objectively grading the likelihood of delayed diagnosis of appendicitis, new-onset diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and sepsis.

METHODS

Case vignettes were constructed for each condition. In each vignette, a patient has the condition and had a previous emergency department (ED) visit within 7 days. Condition-specific multi-specialty expert Delphi panels reviewed the case vignettes and graded the likelihood of a delayed diagnosis on a five-point scale. Delayed diagnosis was defined as the condition being present during the previous ED visit. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. In each Delphi round, panelists were given the scores from the previous round and asked to rescore. A case scoring guide was created from the consensus scores.

RESULTS

Eighteen expert panelists participated. Consensus was achieved within three Delphi rounds for all appendicitis and sepsis vignettes. We reached consensus on 23/30 (77%) DKA vignettes. A case review guide was created from the consensus scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-specialty expert reviewers can agree on the likelihood of a delayed diagnosis for cases of appendicitis and sepsis, and for most cases of DKA. We created a guide that can be used by researchers and quality improvement specialists to allow for objective case review to determine when delayed diagnoses have occurred for appendicitis, DKA, and sepsis.

Identifying trigger concepts to screen emergency department visits for diagnostic errors

OBJECTIVES

The diagnostic process is a vital component of safe and effective emergency department (ED) care. There are no standardized methods for identifying or reliably monitoring diagnostic errors in the ED, impeding efforts to enhance diagnostic safety. We sought to identify trigger concepts to screen ED records for diagnostic errors and describe how they can be used as a measurement strategy to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review and surveyed ED directors to compile a list of potential electronic health record (EHR) trigger (e-triggers) and non-EHR based concepts. We convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to build consensus on trigger concepts to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm in the ED.

RESULTS

Six e-trigger and five non-EHR based concepts were selected by the expert panel. E-trigger concepts included: unscheduled ED return to ED resulting in hospital admission, death following ED visit, care escalation, high-risk conditions based on symptom-disease dyads, return visits with new diagnostic/therapeutic interventions, and change of treating service after admission. Non-EHR based signals included: cases from mortality/morbidity conferences, risk management/safety office referrals, ED medical director case referrals, patient complaints, and radiology/laboratory misreads and callbacks. The panel suggested further refinements to aid future research in defining diagnostic error epidemiology in ED settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a set of e-trigger concepts and non-EHR based signals that could be developed further to screen ED visits for diagnostic safety events. With additional evaluation, trigger-based methods can be used as tools to monitor and improve ED diagnostic performance.

Factors Associated With Potentially Missed Diagnosis of Appendicitis in the Emergency Department

IMPORTANCE

Appendicitis may be missed during initial emergency department (ED) presentation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis (ie, patients with symptoms associated with appendicitis, including abdominal pain, constipation, nausea and/or vomiting, fever, and diarrhea diagnosed within 1-30 days after initial ED presentation) with patients diagnosed with appendicitis on the same day of ED presentation to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, a retrospective analysis of commercially insured claims data was conducted from January 1 to December 15, 2019. Patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated symptoms associated with appendicitis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified using the Clinformatics Data Mart administrative database (Optum Insights). The study sample comprised eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged <18 years) who had previous ED visits within 30 days of an appendicitis diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for abdominal pain and its combinations with other symptoms associated with appendicitis were compared between patients with a same-day diagnosis of appendicitis and patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis.

RESULTS

Of 187 461 patients with a diagnosis of appendicitis, a total of 123 711 (66%; 101 375 adults [81.9%] and 22 336 children [18.1%]) were eligible for analysis. Among adults, 51 923 (51.2%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 44.3 (18.2) years; among children, 9631 (43.1%) were girls, with a mean (SD) age of 12.2 (18.2) years. The frequency of potentially missed appendicitis was 6060 of 101 375 adults (6.0%) and 973 of 22 336 children (4.4%). Patients with isolated abdominal pain (adults, AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.69; P < .001; children, AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001) or with abdominal pain and nausea and/or vomiting (adults, AOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P = .003; children, AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03) were less likely to have missed appendicitis. Patients with abdominal pain and constipation (adults, AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.75; P < .001; children, AOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.86-3.17; P < .001) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Stratified by the presence of undifferentiated symptoms, women (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.58-1.78; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.52-1.85; fever, AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; diarrhea, AOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.40; and constipation, AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.24-1.82) and girls (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.43-1.88; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13; fever, AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.11; diarrhea, AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.19-2.74; and constipation, AOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88-1.78) as well as patients with a comorbidity index of 2 or greater (adults, abdominal pain, AOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 3.09-3.60; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 3.23-4.14; fever, AOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 3.79-6.60; diarrhea, AOR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.39-5.38; and constipation, AOR, 4.17; 95% CI, 3.08-5.65; children, abdominal pain, AOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.93-3.05; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.89-3.45; fever, AOR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.71-6.25; diarrhea, AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.18-3.97; and constipation, AOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.30-3.70) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Adult patients who received computed tomographic scans at the initial ED visit (abdominal pain, AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.75; fever, AOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.58; diarrhea, AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; and constipation, AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) were less likely to have missed appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Regardless of age, a missed diagnosis of appendicitis was more likely to occur in women, patients with comorbidities, and patients who experienced abdominal pain accompanied by constipation. Population-based estimates of the rates of potentially missed appendicitis reveal opportunities for improvement and identify factors that may mitigate the risk of a missed diagnosis.