Prevalence and characterisation of diagnostic error among 7-day all-cause hospital medicine readmissions: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

BackgroundThe prevalence and aetiology of diagnostic error among hospitalised adults is unknown, though likely contributes to patient morbidity and mortality. We aim to identify and characterise the prevalence and types of diagnostic error among patients readmitted within 7 days of hospital discharge.MethodsRetrospective cohort study at a single urban academic hospital examining adult patients discharged from the medical service and readmitted to the same hospital within 7 days between January and December 2018. The primary outcome was diagnostic error presence, identified through two-physician adjudication using validated tools. Secondary outcomes included severity of error impact and characterisation of diagnostic process failures contributing to error.ResultsThere were 391 cases of unplanned 7-day readmission (5.2% of 7507 discharges), of which 376 (96.2%) were reviewed. Twenty-one (5.6%) admissions were found to contain at least one diagnostic error during the index admission. The most common problem areas in the diagnostic process included failure to order needed test(s) (n=11, 52.4%), erroneous clinician interpretation of test(s) (n=10, 47.6%) and failure to consider the correct diagnosis (n=8, 38.1%). Nineteen (90.5%) of the diagnostic errors resulted in moderate clinical impact, primarily due to short-term morbidity or contribution to the readmission.ConclusionThe prevalence of diagnostic error among 7-day medical readmissions was 5.6%. The most common drivers of diagnostic error were related to clinician diagnostic reasoning. Efforts to reduce diagnostic error should include strategies to augment diagnostic reasoning and improve clinician decision-making around diagnostic studies.

Diagnostic Errors in Initial Misdiagnosis of Foreign Body Aspiration in Children: A Retrospective Observational Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital in China

“…We applied the DEER taxonomy tool to evaluate errors further. This tool has recently been used in several high quality studies of misdiagnosis (8,10,(16)(17)(18). Errors in diagnostic testing (65.0%) and eliciting critical elements of history (20.0%) were the main reasons leading to initially missed diagnoses.…”

Why identifying adverse events in paediatric emergency care matters

“…This standard is used in detecting all-cause harm, in part to avoid subjectivity. 9 The higher 50% standard used in Plint and colleagues' study requires judgements as to whether, for example, hypotension in a patient with sepsis who received morphine was possibly an AE due to the morphine or was attributable to their underlying condition. Second, because subsequent care was a key means of identifying AEs in Plint and colleagues' study, events that did not prompt subsequent care would only have been included if families were aware of and reported them.…”

“…This is a higher standard than the ‘possible AE’ standard, in which determination of an AE hinges on whether some action or omission ‘may have contributed to’ an AE. This standard is used in detecting all-cause harm, in part to avoid subjectivity 9. The higher 50% standard used in Plint and colleagues’ study requires judgements as to whether, for example, hypotension in a patient with sepsis who received morphine was possibly an AE due to the morphine or was attributable to their underlying condition.…”

The challenge of competency assessment of the late‐career practitioner

“…38 In a retrospective study, Raffel reported factors that contributed to an error in diagnosis, including failure to order needed tests, erroneous clinician interpretation of tests, and failure to consider the correct diagnosis. 39 A deep analysis of claims against physicians 55 and over (which is beyond the scope of this article) would be necessary to identify any correlation between their age and competency as contributory factors in claims arising from error in diagnosis.…”