Dataset Information

The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.

ABSTRACT: A wide variety of research studies suggest that breakdowns in the diagnostic process result in a staggering toll of harm and patient deaths. These include autopsy studies, case reviews, surveys of patient and physicians, voluntary reporting systems, using standardised patients, second reviews, diagnostic testing audits and closed claims reviews. Although these different approaches provide important information and unique insights regarding diagnostic errors, each has limitations and none is well suited to establishing the incidence of diagnostic error in actual practice, or the aggregate rate of error and harm. We argue that being able to measure the incidence of diagnostic error is essential to enable research studies on diagnostic error, and to initiate quality improvement projects aimed at reducing the risk of error and harm. Three approaches appear most promising in this regard: (1) using 'trigger tools' to identify from electronic health records cases at high risk for diagnostic error; (2) using standardised patients (secret shoppers) to study the rate of error in practice; (3) encouraging both patients and physicians to voluntarily report errors they encounter, and facilitating this process.

SUBMITTER: Graber ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3786666 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.

Graber Mark L ML

BMJ quality & safety 20130615

A wide variety of research studies suggest that breakdowns in the diagnostic process result in a staggering toll of harm and patient deaths. These include autopsy studies, case reviews, surveys of patient and physicians, voluntary reporting systems, using standardised patients, second reviews, diagnostic testing audits and closed claims reviews. Although these different approaches provide important information and unique insights regarding diagnostic errors, each has limitations and none is well ...[more]

PMID: 23771902

Similar Datasets

Project description:I am a healer, yet sometimes I do more harm than good…David Hilfiker, 1984.ObjectivesMedical error is common and significantly impacts patients, physicians, learners, and public perception of the medical system; however, residents receive little formal training on this topic. Research on error response in practicing physicians is limited, and even more so on medical education interventions to improve this. This study evaluates a curriculum developed to foster the sharing of faculty medical error stories, practice of constructive coping strategies, and growth in resident confidence in managing error.MethodsResearchers identified factors related to effective physician error management and recovery to develop a targeted intervention for family medicine residents. The intervention consisted of three one hour didactic sessions in a medium-sized midwestern, urban family medicine residency program over the course of 6 months. Instructional methods included guided reflection after mentor storytelling, small group discussion, role play, and self-reflection.ResultsOf the 30 residents, 22 (73%) completed the preintervention survey, and 15 (50%) completed the postintervention survey. While most residents reported having experienced error (55%), fewer than half of the residents reported they knew what to do when faced with medical errors (46%). This increased to 93% after intervention. Personal error stories from mentors were the most desired type of training reported by residents preintervention, but this was surpassed by legal and malpractice concerns in the postintervention survey. Rates of reported error story sharing increased after the intervention. Residents reported self-efficacy (I can be honest about errors) and self-awareness (I acknowledge when I am at increased risk for error) also increased with intervention. However, these changes did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionsFamily medicine residents are receptive to learning from peers and mentors about error management and recovery. A brief intervention can impact the culture around disclosure and support. Future research should focus on the impact of targeted interventions on patient-oriented outcomes related to medical error.

Project description:Checklists have been shown to improve performance of complex, error-prone processes. To develop a checklist with potential to reduce the likelihood of diagnostic error for patients presenting to the Emergency Room (ER) with undiagnosed conditions.Participants included 15 staff ER physicians working in two large academic centers. A rapid cycle design and evaluation process was used to develop a general checklist for high-risk situations vulnerable to diagnostic error. Physicians used the general checklists and a set of symptom-specific checklists for a period of 2 months. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation that included interviews regarding user perceptions and quantitative assessment of resource utilization before and after checklist use.A general checklist was developed iteratively by obtaining feedback from users and subject matter experts, and was trialed along with a set of specific checklists in the ER. Both the general and the symptom-specific checklists were judged to be helpful, with a slight preference for using symptom-specific lists. Checklist use commonly prompted consideration of additional diagnostic possibilities, changed the working diagnosis in approximately 10% of cases, and anecdotally was thought to be helpful in avoiding diagnostic errors. Checklist use was prompted by a variety of different factors, not just diagnostic uncertainty. None of the physicians used the checklists in collaboration with the patient, despite being encouraged to do so. Checklist use did not prompt large changes in test ordering or consultation.In the ER setting, checklists for diagnosis are helpful in considering additional diagnostic possibilities, thus having potential to prevent diagnostic errors. Inconsistent usage and using the checklists privately, instead of with the patient, are factors that may detract from obtaining maximum benefit. Further research is needed to optimize checklists for use in the ER, determine how to increase usage, to evaluate the impact of checklist utilization on error rates and patient outcomes, to determine how checklist usage affects test ordering and consultation, and to compare checklists generally with other approaches to reduce diagnostic error.

Project description:IntroductionWrong 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?MethodsAdvanced 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.ResultsStudents 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.DiscussionBeing 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.

Dataset Information

The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.

Publications

The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets