Diagnostic Error in the Critically Ill: A Hidden Epidemic?

Ten misconceptions regarding decision-making in critical care

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

The synergy of artificial intelligence and personalized medicine for the enhanced diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease

INTRODUCTION

The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 marked the beginning of a transformative era in medicine. This milestone laid the foundation for personalized medicine, an innovative approach that customizes healthcare treatments.

CONTENT

Central to the advancement of personalized medicine is the understanding of genetic variations and their impact on drug responses. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into drug response trials has been pivotal in this domain. These technologies excel in handling large-scale genomic datasets and patient histories, significantly improving diagnostic accuracy, disease prediction and drug discovery. They are particularly effective in addressing complex diseases such as cancer and genetic disorders. Furthermore, the advent of wearable technology, when combined with AI, propels personalized medicine forward by offering real-time health monitoring, which is crucial for early disease detection and management.

SUMMARY

The integration of AI into personalized medicine represents a significant advancement in healthcare, promising more accurate diagnoses, effective treatment plans and innovative drug discoveries.

OUTLOOK

As technology continues to evolve, the role of AI in enhancing personalized medicine and transforming the healthcare landscape is expected to grow exponentially. This synergy between AI and healthcare holds great promise for the future, potentially revolutionizing the way healthcare is delivered and experienced.

Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Adults Who Died or Were Transferred to Intensive Care

Importance

Diagnostic errors contribute to patient harm, though few data exist to describe their prevalence or underlying causes among medical inpatients.

Objective

To determine the prevalence, underlying cause, and harms of diagnostic errors among hospitalized adults transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) or who died.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study conducted at 29 academic medical centers in the US in a random sample of adults hospitalized with general medical conditions and who were transferred to an ICU, died, or both from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Each record was reviewed by 2 trained clinicians to determine whether a diagnostic error occurred (ie, missed or delayed diagnosis), identify diagnostic process faults, and classify harms. Multivariable models estimated association between process faults and diagnostic error. Opportunity for diagnostic error reduction associated with each fault was estimated using the adjusted proportion attributable fraction (aPAF). Data analysis was performed from April through September 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Whether or not a diagnostic error took place, the frequency of underlying causes of errors, and harms associated with those errors.

Results

Of 2428 patient records at 29 hospitals that underwent review (mean [SD] patient age, 63.9 [17.0] years; 1107 [45.6%] female and 1321 male individuals [54.4%]), 550 patients (23.0%; 95% CI, 20.9%-25.3%) had experienced a diagnostic error. Errors were judged to have contributed to temporary harm, permanent harm, or death in 436 patients (17.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-19.8%); among the 1863 patients who died, diagnostic error was judged to have contributed to death in 121 (6.6%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.2%). In multivariable models examining process faults associated with any diagnostic error, patient assessment problems (aPAF, 21.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-26.4%) and problems with test ordering and interpretation (aPAF, 19.9%; 95% CI, 14.7%-25.1%) had the highest opportunity to reduce diagnostic errors; similar ranking was seen in multivariable models examining harmful diagnostic errors.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to the ICU were common and associated with patient harm. Problems with choosing and interpreting tests and the processes involved with clinician assessment are high-priority areas for improvement efforts.

Developing, pilot testing, and refining requirements for 3 EHR-integrated interventions to improve diagnostic safety in acute care: a user-centered approach

Objective

To describe a user-centered approach to develop, pilot test, and refine requirements for 3 electronic health record (EHR)-integrated interventions that target key diagnostic process failures in hospitalized patients.

Materials and Methods

Three interventions were prioritized for development: a Diagnostic Safety Column (DSC) within an EHR-integrated dashboard to identify at-risk patients; a Diagnostic Time-Out (DTO) for clinicians to reassess the working diagnosis; and a Patient Diagnosis Questionnaire (PDQ) to gather patient concerns about the diagnostic process. Initial requirements were refined from analysis of test cases with elevated risk predicted by DSC logic compared to risk perceived by a clinician working group; DTO testing sessions with clinicians; PDQ responses from patients; and focus groups with clinicians and patient advisors using storyboarding to model the integrated interventions. Mixed methods analysis of participant responses was used to identify final requirements and potential implementation barriers.

Results

Final requirements from analysis of 10 test cases predicted by the DSC, 18 clinician DTO participants, and 39 PDQ responses included the following: DSC configurable parameters (variables, weights) to adjust baseline risk estimates in real-time based on new clinical data collected during hospitalization; more concise DTO wording and flexibility for clinicians to conduct the DTO with or without the patient present; and integration of PDQ responses into the DSC to ensure closed-looped communication with clinicians. Analysis of focus groups confirmed that tight integration of the interventions with the EHR would be necessary to prompt clinicians to reconsider the working diagnosis in cases with elevated diagnostic error (DE) risk or uncertainty. Potential implementation barriers included alert fatigue and distrust of the risk algorithm (DSC); time constraints, redundancies, and concerns about disclosing uncertainty to patients (DTO); and patient disagreement with the care team's diagnosis (PDQ).

Discussion

A user-centered approach led to evolution of requirements for 3 interventions targeting key diagnostic process failures in hospitalized patients at risk for DE.

Conclusions

We identify challenges and offer lessons from our user-centered design process.

A structured approach to EHR surveillance of diagnostic error in acute care: an exploratory analysis of two institutionally-defined case cohorts

OBJECTIVES

To test a structured electronic health record (EHR) case review process to identify diagnostic errors (DE) and diagnostic process failures (DPFs) in acute care.

METHODS

We adapted validated tools (Safer Dx, Diagnostic Error Evaluation Research [DEER] Taxonomy) to assess the diagnostic process during the hospital encounter and categorized 13 postulated e-triggers. We created two test cohorts of all preventable cases (n=28) and an equal number of randomly sampled non-preventable cases (n=28) from 365 adult general medicine patients who expired and underwent our institution's mortality case review process. After excluding patients with a length of stay of more than one month, each case was reviewed by two blinded clinicians trained in our process and by an expert panel. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. We compared the frequency of DE contributing to death in both cohorts, as well as mean DPFs and e-triggers for DE positive and negative cases within each cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (96.4%) preventable and 24 (85.7%) non-preventable cases underwent our review process. Inter-rater reliability was moderate between individual reviewers (Cohen's kappa 0.41) and substantial with the expert panel (Cohen's kappa 0.74). The frequency of DE contributing to death was significantly higher for the preventable compared to the non-preventable cohort (56% vs. 17%, OR 6.25 [1.68, 23.27], p<0.01). Mean DPFs and e-triggers were significantly and non-significantly higher for DE positive compared to DE negative cases in each cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed substantial agreement among final consensus and expert panel reviews using our structured EHR case review process. DEs contributing to death associated with DPFs were identified in institutionally designated preventable and non-preventable cases. While e-triggers may be useful for discriminating DE positive from DE negative cases, larger studies are required for validation. Our approach has potential to augment institutional mortality case review processes with respect to DE surveillance.