nalyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach

Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adverse event surveillance approaches underestimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors (DEs) related to hospital care.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of a stratified sample of patients hospitalised on general medicine using four criteria: transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), death within 90 days, complex clinical events, and none of the aforementioned high-risk criteria. Cases in higher-risk subgroups were over-sampled in predefined percentages. Each case was reviewed by two adjudicators trained to judge the likelihood of DE using the Safer Dx instrument; characterise harm, preventability and severity; and identify associated process failures using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy modified for acute care. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainty about DE or impact were reviewed by an expert panel. We used descriptive statistics to report population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs by demographic variables based on the weighted sample, and characteristics of harmful DEs. Multivariable models were used to adjust association of process failures with harmful DEs.

RESULTS

Of 9147 eligible cases, 675 were randomly sampled within each subgroup: 100% of ICU transfers, 38.5% of deaths within 90 days, 7% of cases with complex clinical events and 2.4% of cases without high-risk criteria. Based on the weighted sample, the population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs were 7.2% (95% CI 4.66 to 9.80), 6.1% (95% CI 3.79 to 8.50) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.55 to 1.68), respectively. Harmful DEs were frequently characterised as delays (61.9%). Severely harmful DEs were frequent in high-risk cases (55.1%). In multivariable models, process failures in assessment, diagnostic testing, subspecialty consultation, patient experience, and history were significantly associated with harmful DEs.

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate that a harmful DE occurred in 1 of every 14 patients hospitalised on general medicine, the majority of which were preventable. Our findings underscore the need for novel approaches for adverse DE surveillance.

Patient-Clinician Diagnostic Concordance upon Hospital Admission

OBJECTIVES

 This study aimed to pilot an application-based patient diagnostic questionnaire (PDQ) and assess the concordance of the admission diagnosis reported by the patient and entered by the clinician.

METHODS

 Eligible patients completed the PDQ assessing patients' understanding of and confidence in the diagnosis 24 hours into hospitalization either independently or with assistance. Demographic data, the hospital principal problem upon admission, and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were retrieved from the electronic health record (EHR). Two physicians independently rated concordance between patient-reported diagnosis and clinician-entered principal problem as full, partial, or no. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographics for concordant (full) and nonconcordant (partial or no) outcome groups. Multivariable logistic regressions of PDQ questions and a priori selected EHR data as independent variables were conducted to predict nonconcordance.

RESULTS

 A total of 157 (77.7%) questionnaires were completed by 202 participants; 77 (49.0%), 46 (29.3%), and 34 (21.7%) were rated fully concordant, partially concordant, and not concordant, respectively. Cohen's kappa for agreement on preconsensus ratings by independent reviewers was 0.81 (0.74, 0.88). In multivariable analyses, patient-reported lack of confidence and undifferentiated symptoms (ICD-10 "R-code") for the principal problem were significantly associated with nonconcordance (partial or no concordance ratings) after adjusting for other PDQ questions (3.43 [1.30, 10.39], p = 0.02) and in a model using selected variables (4.02 [1.80, 9.55], p < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 About one-half of patient-reported diagnoses were concordant with the clinician-entered diagnosis on admission. An ICD-10 "R-code" entered as the principal problem and patient-reported lack of confidence may predict patient-clinician nonconcordance early during hospitalization via this approach.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: shoulder pain as the first and only manifestation of lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death and poses significant challenges in diagnosis and management. Although muscle metastases are exceedingly rare and typically not the initial clinical manifestation of neoplastic processes, their recognition is crucial for optimal patient care.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case report in which we identify the unique scenario of a 60-year-old man with shoulder pain and a deltoid muscle mass, initially suggestive of an undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. However, further investigations, including radiological findings and muscle biopsy, revealed an unexpected primary lung adenocarcinoma. We performed a systematic literature search to identify the incidence of SMM and reflect on how to improve and build on better diagnosis for entities as atypical as this. This atypical presentation highlights the importance of recognizing and addressing cognitive biases in clinical decision-making, as acknowledging the possibility of uncommon presentations is vital. By embracing a comprehensive approach that combines imaging studies with histopathological confirmation, healthcare providers can ensure accurate prognoses and appropriate management strategies, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This case serves as a reminder of the need to remain vigilant, open-minded, and aware of cognitive biases when confronted with uncommon clinical presentations, emphasizing the significance of early recognition and prompt evaluation in achieving optimal patient care.

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.

Drug interference with biochemical laboratory tests

Clinical laboratory practice represents an essential part of clinical decision-making, as it influences 60-70% of medical decisions at all levels of health care. Results of biochemical laboratory tests (BLTs) have a key role in establishment of adequate diagnosis as well as in evaluation of treatment progress and outcome. The prevalence of drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is up to 43% of patients who had laboratory results influenced by drugs. Unrecognized DLTIs may lead to misinterpreted BLTs results, incorrect or delayed diagnosis, extra costs for unnecessary additional tests or inadequate therapy, as all may cause false clinical decisions. The significance of timely and adequate recognition of DLTIs is to prevent common clinical consequences such as incorrectly interpreted test results, delayed or non-treated condition due to erroneous diagnosis or unnecessary extra tests or therapy. Medical professionals should be educated that it is essential to obtain patient data about medications especially for the drugs used in the last 10 days before biological material collection. Our mini-review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state in this important domain of medical biochemistry with detailed analysis of the effect of drugs on BLTs and to give detailed information to medical specialists.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care

BACKGROUND

Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events.

RESULTS

In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

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.