Misdiagnosis of Cerebellar Infarcts and Its Outcome

Cerebellar infarction, a rare category of stroke, is often misdiagnosed but not given much importance in the available literature. Its presentation overlaps with symptoms of other neurologic, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and systemic conditions and therefore is nonspecific. Early diagnosis and management of cerebellar strokes are of utmost importance as the lack of a proper diagnosis may increase overall morbidity and mortality. Lack of awareness of the warning signs and symptoms, non-specificity of symptoms, absence of neurological deficits, and imaging discrepancies are some of the factors contributing to misdiagnosis and delayed treatment. If symptomatology is considered, it is found that symptoms of posterior circulation stroke were more frequently misdiagnosed compared to anterior circulation. Nausea and vomiting increased the chance further. Some other rare presentations include gastrointestinal symptoms, isolated vertigo, and symptoms of inner ear disease. Overdependence on radiological investigations often masks the significance of clinical examination. Ischemic stroke may appear normal in the initial 48 hours in the computed tomography scan of the brain or bony artefacts may hide the lesion. Permanent disabling deficits can follow a cerebellar stroke and the complications, which include hydrocephalus, brain stem compression, and gait abnormalities, necessitate prompt identification and management. In this review article, we aim at analysing various case reports of cerebellar infarction, the most common presentations that were under-evaluated, and their outcomes, thereby highlighting the importance of proper diagnosis and reporting of cerebellar infarction in the future. A thorough knowledge of the association between various clinical presentations of cerebellar stroke and its misdiagnosis helps clinicians to be more vigilant about the disease.

Medical Malpractice and Diagnostic Errors in Japanese Emergency Departments

INTRODUCTION

Emergency departments (ED) are unpredictable and prone to diagnostic errors. In addition, non-emergency specialists often provide emergency care in Japan due to a lack of certified emergency specialists, making diagnostic errors and associated medical malpractice more likely. While several studies have investigated the medical malpractice related to diagnostic errors in EDs, only a few have focused on the conditions in Japan. This study examines diagnostic error-related medical malpractice lawsuits in Japanese EDs to understand how various factors contribute to diagnostic errors.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined data on medical lawsuits from 1961-2017 to identify types of diagnostic errors and initial and final diagnoses from non-trauma and trauma cases.

RESULTS

We evaluated 108 cases, of which 74 (68.5%) were diagnostic error cases. Twenty-eight of the diagnostic errors were trauma-related (37.8%). In 86.5% of these diagnostic error cases, the relevant errors were categorized as either missed or diagnosed incorrectly; the others were attributable to diagnostic delay. Cognitive factors (including faulty perception, cognitive biases, and failed heuristics) were associated with 91.7% of errors. Intracranial hemorrhage was the most common final diagnosis of trauma-related errors (42.9%), and the most common initial diagnoses of non-trauma-related errors were upper respiratory tract infection (21.7%), non-bleeding digestive tract disease (15.2%), and primary headache (10.9%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the first to examine medical malpractice errors in Japanese EDs, we found that such claims are often developed from initial diagnoses of common diseases, such as upper respiratory tract infection, non-hemorrhagic gastrointestinal diseases, and headaches.

Defining Diagnostic Error: A Scoping Review to Assess the Impact of the National Academies' Report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care

BACKGROUND

Standards for accurate and timely diagnosis are ill-defined. In 2015, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee published a landmark report, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care , and proposed a new definition of diagnostic error, "the failure to ( a ) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem(s) or ( b ) communicate that explanation to the patient."

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore how researchers operationalize the NASEM's definition of diagnostic error with relevance to accuracy, timeliness, and/or communication in peer-reviewed published literature.

METHODS

Using the Arskey and O'Malley's framework framework, we identified published literature from October 2015 to February 2021 using Medline and Google Scholar. We also conducted subject matter expert interviews with researchers.

RESULTS

Of 34 studies identified, 16 were analyzed and abstracted to determine how diagnostic error was operationalized and measured. Studies were grouped by theme: epidemiology, patient focus, measurement/surveillance, and clinician focus. Nine studies indicated using the NASEM definition. Of those, 5 studies also operationalized with existing definitions proposed before the NASEM report. Four studies operationalized the components of the NASEM definition and did not cite existing definitions. Three studies operationalized error using existing definitions only. Subject matter experts indicated that the NASEM definition functions as foundation for researchers to conceptualize diagnostic error.

CONCLUSIONS

The NASEM report produced a common understanding of diagnostic error that includes accuracy, timeliness, and communication. In recent peer-reviewed literature, most researchers continue to use pre-NASEM report definitions to operationalize accuracy and timeliness. The report catalyzed the use of patient-centered concepts in the definition, resulting in emerging studies focused on examining errors related to communicating diagnosis to patients.

Real-world virtual patient simulation to improve diagnostic performance through deliberate practice: a prospective quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic errors are pervasive in medicine and most often caused by clinical reasoning failures. Clinical presentations characterized by nonspecific symptoms with broad differential diagnoses (e.g., dizziness) are especially prone to such errors.

METHODS

We hypothesized that novice clinicians could achieve proficiency diagnosing dizziness by training with virtual patients (VPs). This was a prospective, quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest study (2019) at a single academic medical center. Internal medicine interns (intervention group) were compared to second/third year residents (control group). A case library of VPs with dizziness was developed from a clinical trial (AVERT-NCT02483429). The approach (VIPER - Virtual Interactive Practice to build Expertise using Real cases) consisted of brief lectures combined with 9 h of supervised deliberate practice. Residents were provided dizziness-related reading and teaching modules. Both groups completed pretests and posttests.

RESULTS

For interns (n=22) vs. residents (n=18), pretest median diagnostic accuracy did not differ (33% [IQR 18-46] vs. 31% [IQR 13-50], p=0.61) between groups, while posttest accuracy did (50% [IQR 42-67] vs. 20% [IQR 17-33], p=0.001). Pretest median appropriate imaging did not differ (33% [IQR 17-38] vs. 31% [IQR 13-38], p=0.89) between groups, while posttest appropriateness did (65% [IQR 52-74] vs. 25% [IQR 17-36], p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Just 9 h of deliberate practice increased diagnostic skills (both accuracy and testing appropriateness) of medicine interns evaluating real-world dizziness 'in silico' more than ∼1.7 years of residency training. Applying condensed educational experiences such as VIPER across a broad range of common presentations could significantly enhance diagnostic education and translate to improved patient care.

Observation of the Effectiveness of a Diagnostic Model for Acute Abdominal Pain Based on the Etiology Checklist and Process Thinking

Objective

The present study aimed to explore the effectiveness of the etiology checklist and process thinking in the differential diagnosis for acute abdominal pain.

Methods

A retrospective design was used to include 5,403 patients with acute abdominal pain in the Emergency Department of Hebei Provincial People's Hospital. The patients with acute abdominal pain between July and December 2017 in whom the etiology checklist and process thinking were not implemented were selected as the traditional group. Those with acute abdominal pain between July and December 2018 in whom the etiology checklist and process thinking were implemented were selected as the process thinking group. The clinical data, such as the emergency length of stay, hospitalization expenses, hospitalization length of stay, diagnostic accuracy, and outcome, were compared between the two groups.

Results

For patients at emergency level 2 and above, the average emergency length of stay was shorter in the process thinking group than in the traditional group, while the average emergency length of stay was longer for patients at emergency level 3. For hospitalized patients at emergency level 2 and above and patients at emergency level 3, those in the process thinking group had improved diagnostic accuracy, shorter average hospitalization length of stay, reduced average hospital expenses, and improved outcomes. In the comparison among six physicians, the results in the traditional group were inconsistent and statistically different in terms of the average emergency length of stay and diagnostic accuracy, while the results in the process thinking group tended to be consistent. The differences were not statistically different.

Conclusion

The diagnostic model for acute abdominal pain based on the etiology checklist and process thinking could improve the diagnostic accuracy and outcomes for patients with acute abdominal pain.