Detection and Remediation of Misidentification Errors in Radiology Examination Ordering

Diagnostic error and bias in the department of radiology: a pictorial essay

Diagnostic imaging is an essential and indispensable part of medical diagnosis and treatment, and diagnostic errors or biases are also common in the department of radiology, sometimes even having a severe impact on the diagnosis and treatment of patients. There are various reasons for diagnostic errors or biases in imaging. In this review, we analyze and summarize the causes of diagnostic imaging errors and biases based on practical cases. We propose solutions for dealing with diagnostic imaging errors and reducing their probability, thereby helping radiologists in their clinical practice.Critical relevance statement Diagnostic errors or bias contribute to most medical errors in the radiology department. Solutions for dealing with diagnostic imaging errors are pivotal for patients.Key points• Diagnostic errors or bias contribute to most medical errors in radiology department.• Solutions for dealing with diagnostic imaging errors are pivotal for patients.• This review summarizes the causes of diagnostic errors and offers solutions to them.

The Trigger Tool Method for Routine Pharmacovigilance: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Medical Records of Hospitalized Geriatric Patients

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to assess the feasibility of the trigger tool method for the retrospective detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the Rennes University Hospital. The secondary objective was to describe the performance of the method in terms of positive predictive values (PPVs) and severity or preventability of ADRs.

METHODS

Using the Rennes University Hospital clinical data warehouse, pharmacovigilance experts performed a retrospective review of a random sample of 30 inpatient hospital medical records per month using the triggers "fall" and "delirium" to identify related ADRs among patients 65 years and older in 2018 in the geriatrics department. Using the Z test, we compared the proportion of medical records with a positive (identified) trigger related to an ADR, which were reviewed within 20 minutes using the reference of 50% reviewed within 20 minutes.

RESULTS

Among the 355 medical records reviewed, 222 had at least 1 trigger and 98 at least 1 related ADR. Among the 222 positive trigger medical records, 99.6% were reviewed in under 20 minutes (P < 0.001). The pharmacovigilance assessment took 3 months. The PPVs reached 53.9% (46.0%-61.7%) for falls and 21.0% (14.3%-27.5%) for delirium. Among the ADRs, 80% were serious and 53% were preventable.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the low PPV of the triggers used and the considerable need for technical and human resources, the trigger tool method cannot be used as a routine tool at the pharmacovigilance center. However, it could be implemented occasionally for specific purposes such as monitoring the impact of risk minimization measures to prevent ADRs.