Diagnostic error increases mortality and length of hospital stay in patients presenting through the emergency room

Abstract

Background Diagnostic errors occur frequently, especially in the emergency room. Estimates about the consequences of diagnostic error vary widely and little is known about the factors predicting error. Our objectives thus was to determine the rate of discrepancy between diagnoses at hospital admission and discharge in patients presenting through the emergency room, the discrepancies’ consequences, and factors predicting them. Methods Prospective observational clinical study combined with a survey in a University-affiliated tertiary care hospital. Patients’ hospital discharge diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis at hospital admittance through the emergency room and classified as similar or discrepant according to a predefined scheme by two independent expert raters. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the effect of diagnostic discrepancy on mortality and length of hospital stay and to determine whether characteristics of patients, diagnosing physicians, and context predicted diagnostic discrepancy. Results 755 consecutive patients (322 [42.7%] female; mean age 65.14 years) were included. The discharge diagnosis differed substantially from the admittance diagnosis in 12.3% of cases. Diagnostic discrepancy was associated with a longer hospital stay (mean 10.29 vs. 6.90 days; Cohen’s d 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.70; P = 0.002) and increased patient mortality (8 (8.60%) vs. 25(3.78%); OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.05 to 5.5 P = 0.038). A factor available at admittance that predicted diagnostic discrepancy was the diagnosing physician’s assessment that the patient presented atypically for the diagnosis assigned (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.33–6.96; P = 0.009). Conclusions Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant healthcare problem in patients admitted through the emergency room because they occur in every ninth patient and are associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Discrepancies are not readily predictable by fixed patient or physician characteristics; attention should focus on context. Trial registration https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e011585 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0629-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The accuracy of preliminary diagnoses made by paramedics – a cross-sectional comparative study

“…A physician's diagnosis may not always be completely accurate and there is a possibility that the time between the preliminary and actual diagnosis and treatment given in the prehospital care may affect the patient's condition and symptoms, thus resulting in a different diagnosis. We wanted to use the diagnosis at the patient's discharge from ED and not the admission diagnosis due to the fact that the discharge diagnosis differs from the admittance diagnosis in every ninth patient [23]. Furthermore, the preliminary diagnoses were made by using the ICPC-2 classification, whereas the ED discharge diagnoses were made by using the ICD-10 classification.…”

What determines diagnostic resource consumption in emergency medicine: patients, physicians or context?

“…The primary analysis investigated whether diagnostic error in the ED could be predicted by case or context variables available in the ED and whether such error affects outcome. 22 The ED under investigation is a level 1 trauma centre, part of the University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, and treats over 48 000 patients annually. All patients admitted to a medical ward from the ED during the study period were eligible for study inclusion.…”

Operational measurement of diagnostic safety: state of the science

“…There is also an opportunity to leverage peer review programs to improve diagnostic self-assessment, feedback, and improvement [42]. Similarly, autopsy reports [43], diagnostic discrepancies at admission versus discharge [44,45], escalations of care [46,47], and malpractice claims [48][49][50][51] may be reviewed with special attention to opportunities to improve diagnosis. These data sources may not shed light on the frequency or scope of a problem, but they can help raise awareness of the impact and harm of diagnostic errors and, in some cases, specific opportunities for improvement.…”

“…Administrative and billing data are widely available in most modern HCOs and have been proposed as one source of data for detecting missed opportunities for accurate and timely diagnosis [64][65][66]. For example, diagnosis codes assigned at successive clinical encounters may be used as a proxy for the evolution of a clinical diagnosis; if significant discrepancies are found, it may lead to a search for reasons [44]. Using symptom-disease-based dyads, such as abdominal pain followed by appendicitis a few days later or dizziness followed by stroke, are examples of this approach [66,67].…”