Diagnostic Error in the Critically III: Defining the Problem and Exploring Next Steps to Advance Intensive Care Unit Safety

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.

Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy among intensive care unit clinicians - an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic errors are a source of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, contextual factors influencing clinicians' diagnostic performance have not been studied in authentic ICU settings. We sought to determine the accuracy of ICU clinicians' diagnostic impressions and to characterize how various contextual factors, including self-reported stress levels and perceptions about the patient's prognosis and complexity, impact diagnostic accuracy. We also explored diagnostic calibration, i.e. the balance of accuracy and confidence, among ICU clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted an observational cohort study in an academic medical ICU. Between June and August 2019, we interviewed ICU clinicians during routine care about their patients' diagnoses, their confidence, and other contextual factors. Subsequently, using adjudicated final diagnoses as the reference standard, two investigators independently rated clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and on each patient on a given day ("patient-day") using 5-point Likert scales. We conducted analyses using both restrictive and conservative definitions of clinicians' accuracy based on the two reviewers' ratings of accuracy.

RESULTS

We reviewed clinicians' responses for 464 unique patient-days, which included 255 total patients. Attending physicians had the greatest diagnostic accuracy (77-90 %, rated as three or higher on 5-point Likert scale) followed by the team's primary fellow (73-88 %). Attending physician and fellows were also least affected by contextual factors. Diagnostic calibration was greatest among ICU fellows.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional studies are needed to better understand how contextual factors influence different clinicians' diagnostic reasoning in the ICU.

Delayed diagnosis in a child with strangulated mesenteric hernia

Background

Strangulated intestinal obstruction is a life-threatening condition that should be considered as a differential diagnosis in children with shock. However, it has pitfalls in diagnosis and can lead to diagnostic errors.

Case Presentation

A 3-month-old male patient presented with a pale complexion lasting 2 h and abnormal crying. He was in shock with lactic acidosis, altered mental status, and slight abdominal distension. He required volume resuscitation, vasoactive agents, and transfusion. On Day 2, he had marked abdominal distension and acute kidney injury, which required continuous kidney replacement therapy. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed extensive intestinal ischemia. It took 33.5 h from his arrival to the computed tomography, leading to operative management. The small intestine had entered a mesenteric hiatus, leading to ischemia. He was diagnosed with strangulated mesenteric hernia.

Conclusion

In this case, four pitfalls led to delayed diagnosis. Factors for diagnostic errors specific to strangulated intestinal obstruction and intensive care should be noted.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Diagnostic Error in Pediatric Critical Care: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Effective interventions to prevent diagnostic error among critically ill children should be informed by diagnostic error prevalence and etiologies. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic errors and identify factors associated with error in patients admitted to the PICU.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study using structured medical record review by trained clinicians using the Revised Safer Dx instrument to identify diagnostic error (defined as missed opportunities in diagnosis). Cases with potential errors were further reviewed by four pediatric intensivists who made final consensus determinations of diagnostic error occurrence. Demographic, clinical, clinician, and encounter data were also collected.

SETTING

Four academic tertiary-referral PICUs.

PATIENTS

Eight hundred eighty-two randomly selected patients 0-18 years old who were nonelectively admitted to participating PICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 882 patient admissions, 13 (1.5%) had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Infections (46%) and respiratory conditions (23%) were the most common missed diagnoses. One diagnostic error caused harm with a prolonged hospital stay. Common missed diagnostic opportunities included failure to consider the diagnosis despite a suggestive history (69%) and failure to broaden diagnostic testing (69%). Unadjusted analysis identified more diagnostic errors in patients with atypical presentations (23.1% vs 3.6%, p = 0.011), neurologic chief complaints (46.2% vs 18.8%, p = 0.024), admitting intensivists greater than or equal to 45 years old (92.3% vs 65.1%, p = 0.042), admitting intensivists with more service weeks/year (mean 12.8 vs 10.9 wk, p = 0.031), and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (77% vs 25.1%, p < 0.001). Generalized linear mixed models determined that atypical presentation (odds ratio [OR] 4.58; 95% CI, 0.94-17.1) and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (OR 9.67; 95% CI, 2.86-44.0) were significantly associated with diagnostic error.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill children, 1.5% had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Diagnostic errors were associated with atypical presentations and diagnostic uncertainty on admission, suggesting possible targets for intervention.

Difficult diagnosis in the ICU: making the right call but beware uncertainty and bias

Dealing with an uncertain or missed diagnosis is commonplace in the intensive care unit setting. Affected patients are subject to a potential decrease in quality of care and a greater risk of a poor outcome. The diagnostic process is a complex task that starts with information gathering, followed by integration and interpretation of data, hypothesis generation and, finally, confirmation of a (hopefully correct) diagnosis. This may be particularly challenging in the patient who is critically ill where a good history may not be forthcoming and/or clinical, laboratory and imaging features are non-specific. The aim of this narrative review is to analyse and describe common causes of diagnostic error in the intensive care unit, highlighting the multiple types of cognitive bias, and to suggest a diagnostic framework. To inform this review, we performed a literature search to identify relevant articles, particularly those pertinent to unclear diagnoses in patients who are critically ill. Clinicians should be cognisant as to how they formulate diagnoses and utilise debiasing strategies. Multidisciplinary teamwork and more time spent with the patient, supported by effective and efficient use of electronic healthcare records and decision support resources, is likely to improve the quality of the diagnostic process, patient care and outcomes.

"Attempting to protect self and patient:" A grounded theory study of error recovery by intensive care nurses

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the process of error recovery (ER) by nurses in intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

This qualitative study was conducted in 2018-2020 using the grounded theory methodology.

METHODS

Participants were 20 staff nurses, head nurses and nursing managers recruited from the ICUs. Sampling was started purposively and continued theoretically. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and were analysed using the approach proposed by Corbin and Strauss.

RESULTS

The findings indicated that nurses' primary concern was for the patient and their own personal/professional identity. Five strategies were found including evaluating situation, identifying error, analysing error and situation, determining the agent for error correction, and reducing error effects. Contextual factors were also highlighted as being important in the error recovery. Attempting to protect self and patient" was the core category of the study. Nurses' concern about protecting patient life and their own personal/professional identity make them use unprofessional approaches for ER.

Misdiagnosis of Total Parental Nutrition-Related Riboflavin Deficiency: Three Case Reports of Diagnostic Error

Total parental nutrition (TPN) is a critical component of neonatal intensive care. Supply shortages leading to deficiencies in TPN constituents can have devastating consequences for critically ill patients in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), who may be initially misdiagnosed as potential inborn errors of metabolism. Here, we present three cases of patients with prolonged TPN dependence due to intra-abdominal pathology who presented with signs and symptoms concerning for metabolic disorders and who were ultimately determined to be a result of vitamin deficiencies in the TPN after unnecessary testing and interventions had occurred. These diagnostic errors highlight the need for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for nutritional deficiencies when treating patients in the NICU with potential metabolic disorders during times when TPN constituents are not available, as well as advocating to ensure that adequate supplies are maintained for this vulnerable population.

Frequency of diagnostic errors in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency and etiology of diagnostic errors during the first 7 days of admission for inborn neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 600 consecutive inborn admissions. A physician used the "Safer Dx NICU Instrument" to review the electronic health record for the first 7 days of admission, and categorized cases as "yes," "unclear," or "no" for diagnostic error. A secondary reviewer evaluated all "yes" charts plus a random sample of charts in the other categories. Subsequently, all secondary reviewers reviewed records with discordance between primary and secondary review to arrive at consensus.

RESULTS

We identified 37 diagnostic errors (6.2% of study patients) with "substantial agreement" between reviewers (κ = 0.66). The most common diagnostic process breakdown was missed maternal history (51%).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of diagnostic error in inborn NICU patients during the first 7 days of admission is 6.2%.

Contributors to Diagnostic Error or Delay in the Acute Care Setting: A Survey of Clinical Stakeholders

Diagnostic error or delay (DEOD) is common in the acute care setting and results in poor patient outcomes. Many factors contribute to DEOD, but little is known about how contributors may differ across acute care areas and professional roles. As part of a sequential exploratory mixed methods research study, we surveyed acute care clinical stakeholders about the frequency with which different factors contribute to DEOD. Survey respondents could also propose solutions in open text fields. N = 220 clinical stakeholders completed the survey. Care Team Interactions, Systems and Process, Patient, Provider, and Cognitive factors were perceived to contribute to DEOD with similar frequency. Organization and Infrastructure factors were perceived to contribute to DEOD significantly less often. Responses did not vary across acute care setting. Physicians perceived Cognitive factors to contribute to DEOD more frequently compared to those in other roles. Commonly proposed solutions included: technological solutions, organization level fixes, ensuring staff know and are encouraged to work to the full scope of their role, and cultivating a culture of collaboration and respect. Multiple factors contribute to DEOD with similar frequency across acute care areas, suggesting the need for a multi-pronged approach that can be applied across acute care areas.

Impact of subspecialty consultations on diagnosis in the pediatric intensive care unit

OBJECTIVES

Intensivists and subspecialists often collaborate in diagnosing patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Our objectives were to characterize critically ill children for whom subspecialty consultations were requested, describe consultation characteristics, and determine consultations' impact on PICU diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study using chart review in a single tertiary referral PICU including children admitted for acute illness. We collected data on patients with and without subspecialty consultations within the first three days of PICU admission and determined changes in PICU clinicians' diagnostic evaluation or treatment after consultations.

RESULTS

PICU clinicians requested 152 subspecialty consultations for 87 of 101 (86%) patients. Consultations were requested equally for assistance in diagnosis (65%) and treatment (66%). Eighteen of 87 (21%) patients with consultations had a change in diagnosis from PICU admission to discharge, 11 (61%) attributed to subspecialty input. Thirty-nine (45%) patients with consultations had additional imaging and/or laboratory testing and 48 (55%) had medication changes and/or a procedure performed immediately after consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Subspecialty consultations were requested during a majority of PICU admissions. Consultations can influence the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill children. Future research should investigate PICU interdisciplinary collaborations, which are essential for teamwork in diagnosis.

Bedside Clinicians' Perceptions on the Contributing Role of Diagnostic Errors in Acutely Ill Patient Presentation: A Survey of Academic and Community Practice

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore clinicians' perceptions of the occurrence of and factors associated with diagnostic errors in patients evaluated during a rapid response team (RRT) activation or unplanned admission to the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A multicenter prospective survey study was conducted among multiprofessional clinicians involved in the care of patients with RRT activations and/or unplanned ICU admissions (UIAs) at 2 academic hospitals and 1 community-based hospital between April 2019 and March 2020. A study investigator screened eligible patients every day. Within 24 hours of the event, a research coordinator administered the survey to clinicians, who were asked the following: whether diagnostic errors contributed to the reason for RRT/UIA, whether any new diagnosis was made after RRT/UIA, if there were any failures to communicate the diagnosis, and if involvement of specialists earlier would have benefited that patient. Patient clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record.

RESULTS

A total of 1815 patients experienced RRT activations, and 1024 patients experienced UIA. Clinicians reported that 18.2% (95/522) of patients experienced diagnostic errors, 8.0% (42/522) experienced a failure of communication, and 16.7% (87/522) may have benefitted from earlier involvement of specialists. Compared with academic settings, clinicians in the community hospital were less likely to report diagnostic errors (7.0% versus 22.8%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians report a high rate of diagnostic errors in patients they evaluate during RRT or UIAs.

A Research Agenda for Diagnostic Excellence in Critical Care Medicine

Diagnosing critically ill patients in the intensive care unit is difficult. As a result, diagnostic errors in the intensive care unit are common and have been shown to cause harm. Research to improve diagnosis in critical care medicine has accelerated in past years. However, much work remains to fully elucidate the diagnostic process in critical care. To achieve diagnostic excellence, interdisciplinary research is needed, adopting a balanced strategy of continued biomedical discovery while addressing the complex care delivery systems underpinning the diagnosis of critical illness.

Decision Making: Healthy Heuristics and Betraying Biases

Critical care settings are unpredictable, dynamic environments where clinicians face high decision density in suboptimal conditions (stress, time constraints, competing priorities). Experts have described two systems of human decision making: one fast and intuitive; the other slow and methodical. Heuristics, or mental shortcuts, a key feature of intuitive reasoning, are often accurate, applied instinctively, and essential for efficient diagnostic decision making. Heuristics are also prone to failures, or cognitive biases, which can lead to diagnostic errors. A variety of strategies have been proposed to mitigate biases; however, current understanding of such interventions to optimize diagnostic safety is still incomplete.

Diagnostic Error: Why Now?

Diagnostic errors remain relatively understudied and underappreciated. They are particularly concerning in the intensive care unit, where they are more likely to result in harm to patients. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of diagnostic error, and current methods to quantify diagnostic error have numerous limitations as noted in the sentinel report by the National Academy of Medicine. Although definitive definition and measurement remain elusive goals, increasing our understanding of diagnostic error is crucial if we are to make progress in reducing the incidence and harm caused by errors in diagnosis.

Promoting Critical Thinking in Your Intensive Care Unit Team

Effective and efficient critical thinking skills are necessary to engage in accurate clinical reasoning and to make appropriate clinical decisions. Teaching and promoting critical thinking skills in the intensive care unit is challenging because of the volume of data and the constant distractions of competing obligations. Understanding and acknowledging cognitive biases and their impact on clinical reasoning are necessary to promote and support critical thinking in the ICU. Active educational strategies such as concept or mechanism mapping can help to diagnose disorganized thinking and reinforce key connections and important clinical and pathophysiologic concepts, which are critical for inductive reasoning.

Diagnostic Errors in Pediatric Critical Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the literature on prevalence, impact, and contributing factors related to diagnostic error in the PICU.

DATA SOURCES

Search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies on diagnostic error and the diagnostic process in pediatric critical care were included. Non-English studies with no translation, case reports/series, studies providing no information on diagnostic error, studies focused on non-PICU populations, and studies focused on a single condition/disease or a single diagnostic test/tool were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on research design, objectives, study sample, and results pertaining to the prevalence, impact, and factors associated with diagnostic error were abstracted from each study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Using independent tiered review, 396 abstracts were screened, and 17 studies (14 full-text, 3 abstracts) were ultimately included. Fifteen of 17 studies (88%) had an observational research design. Autopsy studies (autopsy rates were 20-47%) showed a 10-23% rate of missed major diagnoses; 5-16% of autopsy-discovered diagnostic errors had a potential adverse impact on survival and would have changed management. Retrospective record reviews reported varying rates of diagnostic error from 8% in a general PICU population to 12% among unexpected critical admissions and 21-25% of patients discussed at PICU morbidity and mortality conferences. Cardiovascular, infectious, congenital, and neurologic conditions were most commonly misdiagnosed. Systems factors (40-67%), cognitive factors (20-3%), and both systems and cognitive factors (40%) were associated with diagnostic error. Limited information was available on the impact of misdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of diagnostic errors in the PICU is limited. Future work to understand diagnostic errors should involve a balanced focus between studying the diagnosis of individual diseases and uncovering common system- and process-related determinants of diagnostic error.

What Contributes to Diagnostic Error or Delay? A Qualitative Exploration Across Diverse Acute Care Settings in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic error and delay is a prevalent and impactful problem. This study was part of a mixed-methods approach to understand the organizational, clinician, and patient factors contributing to diagnostic error and delay among acutely ill patients within a health system, as well as recommendations for the development of tailored, targeted, feasible, and effective interventions.

METHODS

We did a multisite qualitative study using focus group methodology to explore the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders. We used a conceptual framework that characterized diagnostic error and delay as occurring within 1 of 3 stages of the patient's diagnostic journey-critical information gathering, synthesis of key information, and decision making and communication. We developed our moderator guide based on the sociotechnical frameworks previously described by Holden and Singh for understanding noncognitive factors that lead to diagnostic error and delay. Deidentified focus group transcripts were coded in triplicate and to consensus over a series of meetings. A final coded data set was then uploaded into NVivo software. The data were then analyzed to generate overarching themes and categories.

RESULTS

We recruited a total of 64 participants across 4 sites from emergency departments, hospital floor, and intensive care unit settings into 11 focus groups. Clinicians perceive that diverse organizational, communication and coordination, individual clinician, and patient factors interact to impede the process of making timely and accurate diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the complex sociotechnical system within which individual clinicians operate and the contributions of systems, processes, and institutional factors to diagnostic error and delay.

Feasibility and Reliability Testing of Manual Electronic Health Record Reviews as a Tool for Timely Identification of Diagnostic Error in Patients at Risk

BACKGROUND

Although diagnostic error (DE) is a significant problem, it remains challenging for clinicians to identify it reliably and to recognize its contribution to the clinical trajectory of their patients. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the reliability of real-time electronic health record (EHR) reviews using a search strategy for the identification of DE as a contributor to the rapid response team (RRT) activation.

OBJECTIVES

Early and accurate recognition of critical illness is of paramount importance. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility and reliability of prospective, real-time EHR reviews as a means of identification of DE.

METHODS

We conducted this prospective observational study in June 2019 and included consecutive adult patients experiencing their first RRT activation. An EHR search strategy and a standard operating procedure were refined based on the literature and expert clinician inputs. Two physician-investigators independently reviewed eligible patient EHRs for the evidence of DE within 24 hours after RRT activation. In cases of disagreement, a secondary review of the EHR using a taxonomy approach was applied. The reviewers categorized patient experience of DE as Yes/No/Uncertain.

RESULTS

We reviewed 112 patient records. DE was identified in 15% of cases by both reviewers. Kappa agreement with the initial review was 0.23 and with the secondary review 0.65. No evidence of DE was detected in 60% of patients. In 25% of cases, the reviewers could not determine whether DE was present or absent.

CONCLUSION

EHR review is of limited value in the real-time identification of DE in hospitalized patients. Alternative approaches are needed for research and quality improvement efforts in this field.

Diagnostic errors in the neonatal intensive care unit: State of the science and new directions

Diagnostic errors remain understudied in neonatology. The limited available evidence, however, suggests that diagnostic errors in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) result in significant and long-term consequences. In this narrative review, we discuss how the concept of diagnostic errors framed as missed opportunities can be applied to the non-linear nature of diagnosis in a critical care environment such as the NICU. We then explore how the etiology of an error in diagnosis can be related to both individual cognitive factors as well as organizational and systemic factors - all of which often contribute to the error. This multifactorial causation has limited the development of methodology to measure diagnostic errors as well as strategies to mitigate and prevent their adverse effects. We recommend research focused on the frequency and etiology of diagnostic error in the NICU as well as potential mitigation strategies to advance this important field in neonatal intensive care.

Improving Diagnostic Fidelity: An Approach to Standardizing the Process in Patients With Emerging Critical Illness

OBJECTIVE

To reliably improve diagnostic fidelity and identify delays using a standardized approach applied to the electronic medical records of patients with emerging critical illness.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective observational study at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, conducted June 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, used a standard operating procedure applied to electronic medical records to identify variations in diagnostic fidelity and/or delay in adult patients with a rapid response team evaluation, at risk for critical illness. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified predictors and compared outcomes for those with and without varying diagnostic fidelity and/or delay.

RESULTS

The sample included 130 patients. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-76 years), and 47.0% (52 of 130) were women. Clinically significant diagnostic error or delay was agreed in 23 (17.7%) patients (κ=0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74). Median age was 65.4 years (interquartile range, 60.3-74.8) and 9 of the 23 (30.1%) were female. Of those with diagnostic error or delay, 60.9% (14 of 23) died in the hospital compared with 19.6% (21 of 107) without; P<.001. Diagnostic error or delay was associated with higher Charlson comorbidity index score, cardiac arrest triage score, and do not intubate/do not resuscitate status. Adjusting for age, do not intubate/do not resuscitate status, and Charlson comorbidity index score, diagnostic error or delay was associated with increased mortality; odds ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.0-17.8.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic errors or delays can be reliably identified and are associated with higher comorbidity burden and increased mortality.