Multimorbidity and patient-reported diagnostic errors in the primary care setting: multicentre cross-sectional study in Japan

Diagnostic Errors in Obstetric Morbidity and Mortality: Methods for and Challenges in Seeking Diagnostic Excellence

Pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality remain high across the United States, with the majority of deaths being deemed preventable. Misdiagnosis and delay in diagnosis are thought to be significant contributors to preventable harm. These diagnostic errors in obstetrics are understudied. Presented here are five selected research methods to ascertain the rates of and harm associated with diagnostic errors and the pros and cons of each. These methodologies include clinicopathologic autopsy studies, retrospective chart reviews based on clinical criteria, obstetric simulations, pregnancy-related harm case reviews, and malpractice and administrative claim database research. We then present a framework for a future study of diagnostic errors and the pursuit of diagnostic excellence in obstetrics: (1) defining and capturing diagnostic errors, (2) targeting bias in diagnostic processes, (3) implementing and monitoring safety bundles, (4) leveraging electronic health record triggers for case reviews, (5) improving diagnostic skills via simulation training, and (6) publishing error rates and reduction strategies. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this framework to ascertain diagnostic error rates, as well as its impact on patient outcomes, is required.

Diagnostic errors and characteristics of patients seen at a general internal medicine outpatient clinic with a referral for diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

Patients referred to general internal medicine (GIM) outpatient clinics may face a higher risk of diagnostic errors than non-referred patients. This difference in risk is assumed to be due to the differences in diseases and clinical presentations between referred and non-referred patients; however, clinical data regarding this issue are scarce. This study aimed to determine the frequency of diagnostic errors and compare the characteristics of referred and non-referred patients visit GIM outpatient clinics.

METHODS

This study included consecutive outpatients who visited the GIM outpatient clinic at a university hospital, with or without referral. Data on age, sex, chief complaints, referral origin, and final diagnosis were collected from medical records. The Revised Safer Dx Instrument was used to detect diagnostic errors.

RESULTS

Data from 534 referred and 599 non-referred patients were analyzed. The diagnostic error rate was higher in the referral group than that in the non-referral group (2.2 % vs. 0.5 %, p=0.01). The prevalence of abnormal test results and sensory disturbances was higher in the chief complaints, and the prevalence of musculoskeletal system disorders, connective tissue diseases, and neoplasms was higher in the final diagnoses of referred patients compared with non-referred patients. Among referred patients with diagnostic errors, abnormal test results and sensory disturbances were the two most common chief complaints, whereas neoplasia was the most common final diagnosis. Problems with data integration and interpretation were found to be the most common factors contributing to diagnostic errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Paying more attention to patients with abnormal test results and sensory disturbances and considering a higher pre-test probability for neoplasms may prevent diagnostic errors in patients referred to GIM outpatient clinics.

Effect of contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors among patients managed by physicians of the same specialty: a single-centre retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

There has been growing recognition that contextual factors influence the physician's cognitive processes. However, given that cognitive processes may depend on the physicians' specialties, the effects of contextual factors on diagnostic errors reported in previous studies could be confounded by difference in physicians.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to clarify whether contextual factors such as location and consultation type affect diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 1992 consecutive outpatients consulted by physicians from the Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine in a university hospital between 1 January and 31 December 2019. Diagnostic processes were assessed using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument. Patients were categorised into three groups according to contextual factors (location and consultation type): (1) referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department; (2) patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department; and (3) patients with emergency visit to the emergency room. The effect of the contextual factors on the prevalence of diagnostic errors was investigated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Diagnostic errors were observed in 12 of 534 referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department (2.2%), 3 of 599 patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (0.5%) and 13 of 859 patients with emergency visit to the emergency room (1.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a significantly higher prevalence of diagnostic errors in referred patients with scheduled visit to the outpatient department than in patients with urgent visit to the outpatient department (OR 4.08, p=0.03), but no difference between patients with emergency and urgent visit to the emergency room and outpatient department, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Contextual factors such as consultation type may affect diagnostic errors; however, since the differences in the prevalence of diagnostic errors were small, the effect of contextual factors on diagnostic accuracy may be small in physicians working in different care settings.

Effects of a 60-Minute Lecture About Diagnostic Errors for Medical Students: A Single-Center Interventional Study

INTRODUCTION

The danger of diagnostic errors exists in daily medical practice, and doctors are required to avoid such errors as much as possible. Although various factors, including cognitive, system-related, and patient-related factors, are involved in the occurrence of diagnostic errors, the percentage of doctors with insufficient medical knowledge among those factors is extremely low. Therefore, lectures on diagnostic errors might also be useful for medical students without experience working as doctors. This study investigated whether a 60-minute lecture on diagnostic errors would enable Japanese medical students to consider the factors involved in diagnostic errors and how their perceptions of diagnostic errors change.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This single-center interventional study was conducted in October 2022 among fourth-year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, Saga University. A questionnaire survey was conducted before and immediately after the lecture to investigate changes in the perceptions of medical students regarding diagnostic errors. One mock case question was given on an exam the day after the lecture, and the number of responses to cognitive biases and system-related and patient-related factors involved in diagnostic errors were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 83 students were analyzed. After the lecture, medical students were significantly more aware of the existence of the concept of diagnostic error, the importance of learning about it, their willingness to continue learning about it, and their perception that learning about diagnostic errors improves their clinical skills. They were also significantly less likely to feel blame or shame over diagnostic errors. The mean numbers of responses per student for cognitive bias, system-related factors, and patient-related factors were 1.9, 3.4, and 0.9, respectively. The mean number of responses per student for all factors was 5.6.

CONCLUSION

A 60-minute lecture on diagnostic errors among medical students is beneficial because it significantly changes their perception of diagnostic errors. The results of the present study also suggest that lectures may enable Japanese medical students to consider the factors involved in diagnostic errors.

Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Low diagnostic accuracy is a major concern in automated medical history-taking systems with differential diagnosis (DDx) generators. Extending the concept of collective intelligence to the field of DDx generators such that the accuracy of judgment becomes higher when accepting an integrated diagnosis list from multiple people than when accepting a diagnosis list from a single person may be a possible solution.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to assess whether the combined use of several DDx generators improves the diagnostic accuracy of DDx lists.

METHODS

We used medical history data and the top 10 DDx lists (index DDx lists) generated by an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical history-taking system from 103 patients with confirmed diagnoses. Two research physicians independently created the other top 10 DDx lists (second and third DDx lists) per case by imputing key information into the other 2 DDx generators based on the medical history generated by the automated medical history-taking system without reading the index lists generated by the automated medical history-taking system. We used the McNemar test to assess the improvement in diagnostic accuracy from the index DDx lists to the three types of combined DDx lists: (1) simply combining DDx lists from the index, second, and third lists; (2) creating a new top 10 DDx list using a 1/n weighting rule; and (3) creating new lists with only shared diagnoses among DDx lists from the index, second, and third lists. We treated the data generated by 2 research physicians from the same patient as independent cases. Therefore, the number of cases included in analyses in the case using 2 additional lists was 206 (103 cases × 2 physicians' input).

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of the index lists was 46% (47/103). Diagnostic accuracy was improved by simply combining the other 2 DDx lists (133/206, 65%, P<.001), whereas the other 2 combined DDx lists did not improve the diagnostic accuracy of the DDx lists (106/206, 52%, P=.05 in the collective list with the 1/n weighting rule and 29/206, 14%, P<.001 in the only shared diagnoses among the 3 DDx lists).

CONCLUSIONS

Simply adding each of the top 10 DDx lists from additional DDx generators increased the diagnostic accuracy of the DDx list by approximately 20%, suggesting that the combinational use of DDx generators early in the diagnostic process is beneficial.

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.