Developing checklists to prevent diagnostic error in Emergency Room settings

Management of acute exacerbations of COPD in the emergency department and its associations with clinical variables

Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is a common cause for emergency department (ED) visits. Still, large scale studies that assess the management of AECOPD in the ED are limited. Our aim was to evaluate treatment characteristics of AE-COPD in the ED on a national scale. A prospective study as part of the COPD Israeli survey, conducted between 2017 and 2019, in 13 medical centers. Patients hospitalized with AECOPD were included and interviewed. Clinical data related to their ED and hospital stay were collected. 344 patients were included, 38% females, mean age of 70 ± 11 years. Median (IQR) time to first ED treatment was 59 (23-125) minutes and to admission 293 (173-490) minutes. Delayed ED treatment (> 1 h) was associated with older age (p = 0.01) and lack of a coded diagnosis of COPD in hospital records (p = 0.01). Long ED length-of-stay (> 5 h) was linked with longer hospitalizations (p = 0.01). Routine ED care included inhalations of short-acting bronchodilators (246 patients, 72%) and systemic steroids (188 patients, 55%). Receiving routine ED care was associated with its continuation during hospitalization (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, predictors for patients not receiving routine care were obesity (adjusted odds ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.01) and fever (AOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.6, p < 0.01), while oxygen saturation < 91% was an independent predictor for ED routine treatment (AOR 3.6, 95% CI 2.1-6.3, p < 0.01). Our findings highlight gaps in the treatment of AECOPD in the ED on a national scale, with specific predictors for their occurrence.

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.

Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

Neuropronostication for consciousness disorders can be very complex and prone to high uncertainty. Despite notable advancements in the development of dedicated scales and physiological markers using innovative paradigms, these technical progressions are often overshadowed by factors intrinsic to the medical environment. Beyond the scarcity of objective data guiding medical decisions, factors like time pressure, fatigue, multitasking, and emotional load can drive clinicians to rely more on heuristic-based clinical reasoning. Such an approach, albeit beneficial under certain circumstances, may lead to systematic error judgments and impair medical decisions, especially in complex and uncertain environments. After a brief review of the main theoretical frameworks, this paper explores the influence of clinicians' cognitive biases on clinical reasoning and decision-making in the challenging context of neuroprognostication for consciousness disorders. The discussion further revolves around developing and implementing various strategies designed to mitigate these biases and their impact, aiming to enhance the quality of care and the patient safety.

Diagnostic delays among COVID-19 patients with a second concurrent diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the effect of a new pandemic on diagnostic errors.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify delayed second diagnoses among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19.

DESIGNS

An observational cohort Study.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive hospitalized adult patients presenting to the ED of a tertiary referral center with COVID-19 during the Delta and Omicron variant surges. Included patients had evidence of a second diagnosis during their ED stay.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was delayed diagnosis (without documentation or treatment in the ED). Contributing factors were assessed using two logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 1249 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 216 (17%) had evidence of a second diagnosis in the ED. The second diagnosis of 73 patients (34%) was delayed, with a mean (SD) delay of 1.5 (0.8) days. Medical treatment was deferred in 63 patients (86%) and interventional therapy in 26 (36%). The probability of an ED diagnosis was the lowest for Infection-related diagnoses (56%) and highest for surgical-related diagnoses (89%). Evidence for the second diagnosis by physical examination (adjusted odds ratios [AOR] 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-4.68) or by imaging (AOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.16-3.79) were predictors for ED diagnosis. Low oxygen saturation (AOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.79) and cough or dyspnea (AOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.94) in the ED were predictors of a delayed second diagnosis.

Clinical reasoning in dire times. Analysis of cognitive biases in clinical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cognitive biases are systematic cognitive distortions, which can affect clinical reasoning. The aim of this study was to unravel the most common cognitive biases encountered in in the peculiar context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Case study research design. Primary care. Single centre (Division of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland). A short survey was sent to all primary care providers (N = 169) taking care of hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19. Participants were asked to describe cases in which they felt that their clinical reasoning was "disrupted" because of the pandemic context. Seven case were sufficiently complete to be analysed. A qualitative analysis of the clinical cases was performed and a bias grid encompassing 17 well-known biases created. The clinical cases were analyzed to assess for the likelihood (highly likely, plausible, not likely) of the different biases for each case. The most common biases were: "anchoring bias", "confirmation bias", "availability bias", and "cognitive dissonance". The pandemic context is a breeding ground for the emergence of cognitive biases, which can influence clinical reasoning and lead to errors. Awareness of these cognitive mechanisms could potentially reduce biases and improve clinical reasoning. Moreover, the analysis of cognitive biases can offer an insight on the functioning of the clinical reasoning process in the midst of the pandemic crisis.

Checklists to reduce diagnostic error: a systematic review of the literature using a human factors framework

OBJECTIVES

To apply a human factors framework to understand whether checklists reduce clinical diagnostic error have (1) gaps in composition; and (2) components that may be more likely to reduce errors.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through 15 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Any article that included a clinical checklist aimed at improving the diagnostic process. Checklists were defined as any structured guide intended to elicit additional thinking regarding diagnosis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently reviewed and selected articles based on eligibility criteria. Each extracted unique checklist was independently characterised according to the well-established human factors framework: Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (SEIPS 2.0). If reported, checklist efficacy in reducing diagnostic error (eg, diagnostic accuracy, number of errors or any patient-related outcomes) was outlined. Risk of study bias was independently evaluated using standardised quality assessment tools in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 30 articles containing 25 unique checklists were included. Checklists were characterised within the SEIPS 2.0 framework as follows: Work Systems subcomponents of Tasks (n=13), Persons (n=2) and Internal Environment (n=3); Processes subcomponents of Cognitive (n=20) and Social and Behavioural (n=2); and Outcomes subcomponents of Professional (n=2). Other subcomponents, such as External Environment or Patient outcomes, were not addressed. Fourteen checklists examined effect on diagnostic outcomes: seven demonstrated improvement, six were without improvement and one demonstrated mixed results. Importantly, Tasks-oriented studies more often demonstrated error reduction (n=5/7) than those addressing the Cognitive process (n=4/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Most diagnostic checklists incorporated few human factors components. Checklists addressing the SEIPS 2.0 Tasks subcomponent were more often associated with a reduction in diagnostic errors. Studies examining less explored subcomponents and emphasis on Tasks, rather than the Cognitive subcomponents, may be warranted to prevent diagnostic errors.

Diagnostic Error in Pediatrics: A Narrative Review

A priority topic for patient safety research is diagnostic errors. However, despite the significant growth in awareness of their unacceptably high incidence and associated harm, a relative paucity of large, high-quality studies of diagnostic error in pediatrics exists. In this narrative review, we present what is known about the incidence and epidemiology of diagnostic error in pediatrics as well as the established research methods for identifying, evaluating, and reducing diagnostic errors, including their strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, we highlight that pediatric diagnostic error remains an area in need of both innovative research and quality improvement efforts to apply learnings from a rapidly growing evidence base. We propose several key research questions aimed at addressing persistent gaps in the pediatric diagnostic error literature that focus on the foundational knowledge needed to inform effective interventions to reduce the incidence of diagnostic errors and their associated harm. Additional research is needed to better establish the epidemiology of diagnostic error in pediatrics, including identifying high-risk clinical scenarios, patient populations, and groups of diagnoses. A critical need exists for validated measures of both diagnostic errors and diagnostic processes that can be adapted for different clinical settings and standardized for use across varying institutions. Pediatric researchers will need to work collaboratively on large-scale, high-quality studies to accomplish the ultimate goal of reducing diagnostic errors and their associated harm in children by addressing these fundamental gaps in knowledge.

Diagnostic error in the pediatric hospital: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic error is a prevalent type of medical error that is associated with considerable patient harm and increased medical costs. The majority of literature guiding the current understanding of diagnostic error in the hospital setting is from adult studies. However, there is research to suggest this type of error is also prevalent in the pediatric specialty.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to define the current understanding of diagnostic error in the pediatric hospital through a structured literature review.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and identified studies focusing on three aspects of diagnostic error in pediatric hospitals: the incidence or prevalence, contributing factors, and related interventions. We used a tiered review, and a standardized electronic form to extract data from included articles.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine abstracts were screened and 23 full-text studies were included in the final review. Seventeen of the 23 studies focused on the incidence or prevalence, with only 3 studies investigating the utility of interventions. Most studies took place in an intensive care unit or emergency department with very few studies including only patients on the general wards. Overall, the prevalence of diagnostic error in pediatric hospitals varied greatly and depended on the measurement technique and specific hospital setting. Both healthcare system factors and individual cognitive factors were found to contribute to diagnostic error, with there being limited evidence to guide how best to mitigate the influence of these factors on the diagnostic process.

CONCLUSION

The general knowledge of diagnostic error in pediatric hospital settings is limited. Future work should incorporate structured frameworks to measure diagnostic errors and examine clinicians' diagnostic processes in real-time to help guide effective hospital-wide interventions.

Decision Making in Obstetric Anesthesia

Obstetric anesthesiologists provide care under unique conditions, where frequently unscheduled cases demand flexibility in thinking and acting. And although most obstetric patients may be healthy, they can quickly deteriorate, necessitating rapid team diagnostic and treatment interventions. Examining decision making is a critical step in improving care to these patients. This article reviews evidence-based models of decision making both with individuals and with teams, and presents strategies to improve decision making under any circumstance.

Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment

INTRODUCTION

Wrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self-monitoring?

METHODS

Advanced medical students (N = 90) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to complete six computer-based patient cases: group 1 (prompt) was instructed to write down all diagnoses they considered while acquiring diagnostic test results and to finally rank them. Groups 2 and 3 received the same instruction plus a list of 17 differential diagnoses for the chief complaint of the patient. For half of the cases, the DDXC contained the correct diagnosis (DDXC+), and for the other half, it did not (DDXC-; counterbalanced). Group 4 (control) was only instructed to indicate their final diagnosis. Mixed-effects models were used to analyse results.

RESULTS

Students using a DDXC that contained the correct diagnosis had better diagnostic accuracy, mean (standard deviation), 0.75 (0.44), compared to controls without a checklist, 0.49 (0.50), P < 0.001, but those using a DDXC that did not contain the correct diagnosis did slightly worse, 0.43 (0.50), P = 0.602. The number and relevance of diagnostic tests acquired were not affected by condition, nor was self-monitoring. However, participants spent more time on a case in the DDXC-, 4:20 min (2:36), P ≤ 0.001, and DDXC+ condition, 3:52 min (2:09), than in the control condition, 2:59 min (1:44), P ≤ 0.001.

DISCUSSION

Being provided a list of possible diagnoses improves diagnostic accuracy compared with a prompt to create a differential diagnosis list, if the provided list contains the correct diagnosis. However, being provided a diagnosis list without the correct diagnosis did not improve and might have slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy. Interventions neither affected information gathering nor self-monitoring.

Validation of an electronic trigger to measure missed diagnosis of stroke in emergency departments

OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic errors are major contributors to preventable patient harm. We validated the use of an electronic health record (EHR)-based trigger (e-trigger) to measure missed opportunities in stroke diagnosis in emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Using two frameworks, the Safer Dx Trigger Tools Framework and the Symptom-disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error Framework, we applied a symptom-disease pair-based e-trigger to identify patients hospitalized for stroke who, in the preceding 30 days, were discharged from the ED with benign headache or dizziness diagnoses. The algorithm was applied to Veteran Affairs National Corporate Data Warehouse on patients seen between 1/1/2016 and 12/31/2017. Trained reviewers evaluated medical records for presence/absence of missed opportunities in stroke diagnosis and stroke-related red-flags, risk factors, neurological examination, and clinical interventions. Reviewers also estimated quality of clinical documentation at the index ED visit.

RESULTS

We applied the e-trigger to 7,752,326 unique patients and identified 46,931 stroke-related admissions, of which 398 records were flagged as trigger-positive and reviewed. Of these, 124 had missed opportunities (positive predictive value for "missed" = 31.2%), 93 (23.4%) had no missed opportunity (non-missed), 162 (40.7%) were miscoded, and 19 (4.7%) were inconclusive. Reviewer agreement was high (87.3%, Cohen's kappa = 0.81). Compared to the non-missed group, the missed group had more stroke risk factors (mean 3.2 vs 2.6), red flags (mean 0.5 vs 0.2), and a higher rate of inadequate documentation (66.9% vs 28.0%).

CONCLUSION

In a large national EHR repository, a symptom-disease pair-based e-trigger identified missed diagnoses of stroke with a modest positive predictive value, underscoring the need for chart review validation procedures to identify diagnostic errors in large data sets.

Cognitive Errors in Pediatric Emergency Medicine

ABSTRACT

Fundamental to the practice of pediatric emergency medicine is making timely and accurate diagnoses. However, studies have shown errors in this process are common. A number of factors in the emergency department environment as well as identifiable errant patterns of thinking can contribute to such challenges. Cognitive psychologists have described 2 types of thinking: system 1 (fast) relies primarily on intuition and pattern recognition, whereas system 2 (slow) is more deliberative and analytical. Reviewing how these 2 styles of thinking are applied in clinical practice provides a framework for understanding specific cognitive errors. This article uses illustrative examples to introduce many of these common errors, providing context for how and why they occur. In addition, a practical approach to reducing the risk of such errors is offered.

Clinical reasoning: exploring its characteristics and enhancing its learning

Clinical reasoning is an extensive and intricate field, dealing with the process of thinking and decision making in practice. Its study can be quite challenging because it is context and task dependent. Educational frameworks such as the conscious competence model and the dual process reasoning model have been developed to help its understanding. To enhance the learning of clinical reasoning, there are significant areas that can be targeted through learning processes. These include knowledge adequacy; ability to gather appropriate patient data; use of proper reasoning strategies to address specific clinical questions; and the ability to reflect and evaluate on decisions taken, together with the role of the wider practice community and the activity of professional socialisation. This article explores the characteristics of clinical reasoning and delves deeper into the various strategies that prove useful for learning.

The Application of Forensic Podiatry to Clinical Practice

The practice of the clinical podiatrist traditionally focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions of the foot, ankle, and related structures of the leg. Clinical podiatrists are expected to be mindful of "the principles and applications of scientific enquiry." This includes the evaluation of treatment efficacy and the research process. In contrast, the forensic podiatrist specializes in the analysis of foot-, ankle-, and gait-related evidence in the context of the criminal justice system. Although forensic podiatry is a separate, specialized field, many aspects of this discipline can be useful in the clinical treatment and management of foot and ankle problems. The authors, who are forensic podiatrists, contend that the clinical podiatrist can gain significant insights from the field of forensic podiatry. This article aims to provide clinical podiatrists with an overview of the principles and methods that have been tested and applied by forensic podiatrists in their practice, and suggests that the clinical practice of the nonforensic foot practitioner may benefit from such knowledge.

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.

Strategies to reduce diagnostic errors: a systematic review

Background

To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and communication strategies to reduce diagnostic errors made by clinicians.

Methods

MEDLINE complete, CINHAL complete, EMBASE, PSNet and Google Advanced. Electronic and manual search of articles on audit systems and communication strategies or interventions, searched for papers published between January 1990 and April 2017. We included studies with interventions implemented by clinicians in a clinical environment with real patients.

Results

A total of 2431 articles were screened of which 26 studies met inclusion criteria. Data extraction was conducted by two groups, each group comprising two independent reviewers. Articles were classified by communication (6) or audit strategies (20) to reduce diagnostic error in clinical settings. The most common interventions were delivered as technology-based systems n = 16 (62%) and within an acute care setting n = 15 (57%). Nine studies reported randomised controlled trials. Three RCT studies on communication interventions and 3 RCTs on audit strategies found the interventions to be effective in reducing diagnostic errors.

Conclusion

Despite numerous studies on interventions targeting diagnostic errors, our analyses revealed limited evidence on interventions being practically used in clinical settings and a bias of studies originating from the US (n = 19, 73% of included studies). There is some evidence that trigger algorithms, including computer based and alert systems, may reduce delayed diagnosis and improve diagnostic accuracy. In trauma settings, strategies such as additional patient review (e.g. trauma teams) reduced missed diagnosis and in radiology departments review strategies such as team meetings and error documentation may reduce diagnostic error rates over time.

Trial registration

The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42017067056.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-019-0901-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included.

RESULTS

Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Implementation of a clinical reasoning curriculum for clerkship-level medical students: a pseudo-randomized and controlled study

Background The National Academies of Sciences report Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare highlighted the need for better training in medical decision-making, but most medical schools lack formal education in clinical reasoning. Methods We conducted a pseudo-randomized and controlled study to evaluate the impact of a clinical reasoning curriculum in an internal medicine clerkship. Students in the intervention group completed six interactive online modules focused on reasoning concepts and a skills-based workshop. We assessed the impact of the curriculum on clinical reasoning knowledge and skills and perception of education by evaluating: (1) performance on a clinical reasoning concept quiz, (2) demonstration of reasoning in hospital admission notes, and (3) awareness of attending physician utilization of clinical reasoning concepts. Results Students in the intervention group demonstrated superior performance on the clinical reasoning knowledge quiz (67% vs. 54%, p < 0.001). Students in the intervention group demonstrated superior written reasoning skills in the data synthesis (2.3 vs. 2.0, p = 0.02) and diagnostic reasoning (2.2 vs. 1.9, p = 0.02) portions of their admission notes, and reported more discussion of clinical reasoning by their attending physicians. Conclusions Exposure to a clinical reasoning curriculum was associated with superior reasoning knowledge and superior written demonstration of clinical reasoning skills by third-year medical students on an internal medicine clerkship.

Does the accuracy of case history affect interpretation of videolaryngostroboscopic exams?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of initial diagnostic hypotheses on clinicians' 1) detection and perceived severity of abnormalities, and 2) clinical impressions and treatment recommendations for individuals with and without voice disorders following interpretation of videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS).

METHODS

Thirty-two experienced speech-language pathologists and otolaryngologists specializing in voice disorders read case histories prior to interpreting exams. Case histories suggested specific accurate or inaccurate laryngeal diagnoses, or a control scenario that suggested a normal larynx. The effects of the accuracy of case histories on perceived severity of associated visual-perceptual parameters, clinical impressions, and treatment recommendations were examined.

RESULTS

Significant increases in perceived severity of posterior laryngeal appearance (P < 0.05) and mucosal wave (P < 0.02) were observed when these abnormalities were suggested by case histories. Overall agreement with clinical impressions improved from 49% to 72% when the case history was consistent with the examination. Case histories (accurate and inaccurate) indicating voice symptoms predicted recommendations for treatment above and beyond that of VLS presentation alone, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Case histories suggesting specific abnormalities significantly affected severity ratings for two of three associated visual-perceptual parameters selected as primary outcome measures. Accurate case histories suggesting specific abnormalities increased the probability of detection and perceived severity. Inaccurate case histories led to false-positive findings and failures to detect abnormalities or to interpret them as less severe. Case histories affected visual-perceptual judgments and contributed to decisions about clinical impressions and treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b Laryngoscope, 130:718-725, 2020.

A checklist manifesto: Can a checklist of common diagnoses improve accuracy in ECG interpretation?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a checklist of possible etiologies for syncope provided alongside ECGs helps Emergency Medicine (EM) residents identify ECG patterns more accurately than with ECGs alone.

METHODS

We developed a test of ten ECGs with syncope-related pathology from ECG Wave-Maven. We reviewed the literature and used expert consensus to develop a checklist of syncope-related pathologies commonly seen and diagnosed on ECGs. We randomized residents from three New York EM residency programs to interpret ECGs with or without a checklist embedded into the test.

RESULTS

We randomized 165 residents and received completed tests from 100 (60%). Of those who responded, 39% were interns, 23% PGY2s, and 38% were PGY3s or PGY4s. We found no significant difference in overall test scores between those who read ECGs with a checklist and those who read ECGs alone. In post-hoc analysis, residents given a checklist of syncoperelated etiologies were significantly more likely to recognize Brugada (96% vs. 78%, p = 0.007), long QT (86% vs. 68%, p = 0.03) and heart block (100% vs 78%, p = 0.003) as compared to those without a checklist. Those with a checklist were more likely to overread normal ECGs (72% vs 35%, p = 0.0001) compared to those without a checklist, finding pathology where there was none.

CONCLUSION

Using a checklist with common syncope-related pathology when interpreting an ECG for a patient with clinical scenario of syncope may improve residents' ability to recognize some clinically important pathologies; however it could lead to increased interpretation and suspicion of pathology that is not present.

Pediatric faculty knowledge and comfort discussing diagnostic errors: a pilot survey to understand barriers to an educational program

Background

Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare calls for improved training in diagnostic reasoning and establishing non-judgmental forums to learn from diagnostic errors arising from heuristic-driven reasoning. Little is known about pediatric providers’ familiarity with heuristics or the culture surrounding forums where diagnostic errors are discussed. This study aimed to describe pediatric providers’ familiarity with common heuristics and perceptions surrounding public discussions of diagnostic errors.

Methods

We surveyed pediatric providers at a university-affiliated children’s hospital. The survey asked participants to identify common heuristics used during clinical reasoning (five definitions; four exemplar clinical vignettes). Participants answered questions regarding comfort publicly discussing their own diagnostic errors and barriers to sharing them.

Results

Seventy (30.6% response rate) faculty completed the survey. The mean number of correctly selected heuristics was 1.60/5 [standard deviation (SD)=1.13] and 1.01/4 (SD=1.06) for the definitions and vignettes, respectively. A low but significant correlation existed between correctly identifying a definition and selecting the correct heuristic in vignettes (Spearman’s ρ=0.27, p=0.02). Clinicians were significantly less likely to be “pretty” or “very” comfortable discussing diagnostic errors in public vs. private conversations (28.3% vs. 74.3%, p<0.01). The most frequently cited barriers to discussing errors were loss of reputation (62.9%) and fear of knowledge-base (58.6%) or decision-making (57.1%) being judged.

Conclusions

Pediatric providers demonstrated limited familiarity with common heuristics leading to diagnostic error. Greater years in practice is associated with more comfort discussing diagnostic errors, but negative peer and personal perceptions of diagnostic performance are common barriers to discussing errors publicly.

Perception of the usability and implementation of a metacognitive mnemonic to check cognitive errors in clinical setting

BACKGROUND

Establishing a diagnosis is a complex, iterative process involving patient data gathering, integration and interpretation. Premature closure is a fallacious cognitive tendency of closing the diagnostic process before sufficient data have been gathered. A proposed strategy to minimize premature closure is the use of a checklist to trigger metacognition (the process of monitoring one's own thinking). A number of studies have suggested the effectiveness of this strategy in classroom settings. This qualitative study examined the perception of usability of a metacognitive mnemonic checklist called TWED checklist (where the letter "T = Threat", "W = What if I am wrong? What else?", "E = Evidence" and "D = Dispositional influence") in a real clinical setting.

METHOD

Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.

RESULTS

Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.

CONCLUSION

A metacognitive checklist aimed to check cognitive errors may be a useful tool that can be implemented in the real clinical setting.

Patient injury claims involving fractures of the distal radius

Background and purpose - Optimal treatment for distal radius fractures remains controversial, with a significant number of fractures resulting in complications and long-term morbidity. We investigated patient injury claims related to distal radius fractures to detect the critical steps in the treatment leading to avoidable adverse events Patients and methods - We analyzed all compensated patient injury claims in Finland between 2007 and 2011. Claims were collected from the Patient Insurance Center's (PIC) nationwide claim register. Patients of all ages were included. Each claim decision, original patient records, and radiographs related to treatment were reviewed. Results - During the study period, the PIC received 584 claims regarding distal radius fractures, of which 208 (36%) were compensated. Pain and impaired wrist function were the most common subjective reasons to file claims among compensated patients. In 66/208 patients, more than 1 adverse event leading to patient injury was detected. The detected adverse events could be divided into 3 main groups: diagnostic errors (36%, n = 103), decision/planning errors (30%, n = 87), and insufficient technical execution (32%, n = 91). Issues related to malalignment were the main concerns in each group. Diagnostic errors were often related to incorrect assessment of the fracture (re)displacement (75%, n = 78). All of the decision-making errors concerned physicians' decisions to accept unsatisfactory fracture alignment. The most common technical error was insufficient reduction (29%, n = 26). Interpretation - We identified avoidable adverse events behind patient injuries related to distal radius fracture treatment. This study will help physicians to recognize the critical steps in the treatment of this common fracture and enhance patient safety.

Errors in Diagnosis of Spinal Epidural Abscesses in the Era of Electronic Health Records

PURPOSE

With this study, we set out to identify missed opportunities in diagnosis of spinal epidural abscesses to outline areas for process improvement.

METHODS

Using a large national clinical data repository, we identified all patients with a new diagnosis of spinal epidural abscess in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) during 2013. Two physicians independently conducted retrospective chart reviews on 250 randomly selected patients and evaluated their records for red flags (eg, unexplained weight loss, neurological deficits, and fever) 90 days prior to diagnosis. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to evaluate red flags in a timely or appropriate manner. Reviewers gathered information about process breakdowns related to patient factors, the patient-provider encounter, test performance and interpretation, test follow-up and tracking, and the referral process. Reviewers also determined harm and time lag between red flags and definitive diagnoses.

RESULTS

Of 250 patients, 119 had a new diagnosis of spinal epidural abscess, 66 (55.5%) of which experienced diagnostic error. Median time to diagnosis in error cases was 12 days, compared with 4 days in cases without error (P <.01). Red flags that were frequently not evaluated in error cases included unexplained fever (n = 57; 86.4%), focal neurological deficits with progressive or disabling symptoms (n = 54; 81.8%), and active infection (n = 54; 81.8%). Most errors involved breakdowns during the patient-provider encounter (n = 60; 90.1%), including failures in information gathering/integration, and were associated with temporary harm (n = 43; 65.2%).

CONCLUSION

Despite wide availability of clinical data, errors in diagnosis of spinal epidural abscesses are common and involve inadequate history, physical examination, and test ordering. Solutions should include renewed attention to basic clinical skills.

A portable mnemonic to facilitate checking for cognitive errors

BACKGROUND

Although a clinician may have the intention of carrying out strategies to reduce cognitive errors, this intention may not be realized especially under heavy workload situations or following a period of interruptions. Implementing strategies to reduce cognitive errors in clinical setting may be facilitated by a portable mnemonic in the form of a checklist.

METHODS

A 2-stage approach using both qualitative and quantitative methods was used in the development and evaluation of a mnemonic checklist. In the development stage, a focus-driven literature search and a face-to-face discussion with a content expert in cognitive errors were carried out. Categories of cognitive errors addressed and represented in the checklist were identified. In the judgment stage, the face and content validity of the categories of cognitive errors represented in the checklist were determined. This was accomplished through coding responses of a panel of experts in cognitive errors.

RESULTS

From the development stage, a preliminary version of the checklist in the form of four questions represented by four specific letters was developed. The letter 'T' in the TWED checklist stands for 'Threat' (i.e., 'is there any life or limb threat that I need to rule out in this patient?'), 'W' for 'Wrong/What else' (i.e., 'What if I am wrong? What else could it be?'), 'E' for 'evidences' (i.e., 'Do I have sufficient evidences to support or exclude this diagnosis?'), and 'D' for 'dispositional factors' (i.e., 'is there any dispositional factor that influence my decision'). In the judgment stage, the content validity of most categories of cognitive errors addressed in the checklist was rated highly in terms of their relevance and representativeness (with modified kappa values ranging from 0.65 to 1.0). Based on the coding of responses from seven experts, this checklist was shown to be sufficiently comprehensive to activate the implementation intention of checking cognitive errors.

CONCLUSION

The TWED checklist is a portable mnemonic checklist that can be used to activate implementation intentions for checking cognitive errors in clinical settings. While its mnemonic structure eases recall, its brevity makes it portable for quick application in every clinical case until it becomes habitual in daily clinical practice.

Diagnostic errors related to acute abdominal pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are harmful and costly. We reviewed a selected high-risk cohort of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain to evaluate for possible diagnostic errors and associated process breakdowns.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective chart review of ED patients >18 years at an urban academic hospital. A computerised 'trigger' algorithm identified patients possibly at high risk for diagnostic errors to facilitate selective record reviews. The trigger determined patients to be at high risk because they: (1) presented to the ED with abdominal pain, and were discharged home and (2) had a return ED visit within 10 days that led to a hospitalisation. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available during the first ED visit, regardless of patient harm, and included errors that involved both ED and non-ED providers. Errors were determined by two independent record reviewers followed by team consensus in cases of disagreement.

RESULTS

Diagnostic errors occurred in 35 of 100 high-risk cases. Over two-thirds had breakdowns involving the patient-provider encounter (most commonly history-taking or ordering additional tests) and/or follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (most commonly follow-up of abnormal test results). The most frequently missed diagnoses were gallbladder pathology (n=10) and urinary infections (n=5).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic process breakdowns in ED patients with abdominal pain most commonly involved history-taking, ordering insufficient tests in the patient-provider encounter and problems with follow-up of abnormal test results.

Using voluntary reports from physicians to learn from diagnostic errors in emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic errors are common in the emergency department (ED), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their types and origins. We analysed incidents reported by ED physicians to determine disease conditions, contributory factors and patient harm associated with ED-related diagnostic errors.

METHODS

Between 1 March 2009 and 31 December 2013, ED physicians reported 509 incidents using a department-specific voluntary incident-reporting system that we implemented at two large academic hospital-affiliated EDs. For this study, we analysed 209 incidents related to diagnosis. A quality assurance team led by an ED physician champion reviewed each incident and interviewed physicians when necessary to confirm the presence/absence of diagnostic error and to determine the contributory factors. We generated descriptive statistics quantifying disease conditions involved, contributory factors and patient harm from errors.

RESULTS

Among the 209 incidents, we identified 214 diagnostic errors associated with 65 unique diseases/conditions, including sepsis (9.6%), acute coronary syndrome (9.1%), fractures (8.6%) and vascular injuries (8.6%). Contributory factors included cognitive (n=317), system related (n=192) and non-remedial (n=106). Cognitive factors included faulty information verification (41.3%) and faulty information processing (30.6%) whereas system factors included high workload (34.4%) and inefficient ED processes (40.1%). Non-remediable factors included atypical presentation (31.3%) and the patients' inability to provide a history (31.3%). Most errors (75%) involved multiple factors. Major harm was associated with 34/209 (16.3%) of reported incidents.

CONCLUSIONS

Most diagnostic errors in ED appeared to relate to common disease conditions. While sustaining diagnostic error reporting programmes might be challenging, our analysis reveals the potential value of such systems in identifying targets for improving patient safety in the ED.