Dataset Information

Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden.

ABSTRACT: Background: Diagnostic errors are a major patient safety concern in primary healthcare and emergency care. These settings involve a high degree of uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and appear to be those most prone to diagnostic errors. Diagnostic errors comprise missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses preventing the patient from receiving correct and timely treatment. Data regarding which diagnoses are affected in these settings are scarce. Objectives: To understand the distribution of diagnoses among reported diagnostic errors in primary health and emergency care as a step towards creating countermeasures for safer care. Methods: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study investigating reported diagnostic errors. A nationwide cohort was collected from two databases. The study was performed in Sweden from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2016. The setting was primary healthcare and emergency departments. Results: In total, 4830 cases of preventable harm were identified. Of these, 2208 (46%) were due to diagnostic errors. Diagnoses affected in primary care were cancer (37% and 23%, respectively, in the two databases; mostly colon and skin), fractures (mostly hand), heart disease (mostly myocardial infarction), and rupture of tendons (mostly Achilles). Of the diagnostic errors in the emergency department, fractures constituted 24% (mostly hand and wrist, 29%). Rupture/injury of muscle/tendon constituted 19% (mostly finger tendons, rotator cuff tendons, and Achilles tendon). Conclusion: Our findings show that the most frequently missed diagnoses among reported harm were cancers in primary care and fractures in the emergency departments.

SUBMITTER: Fernholm R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6713141 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden.

Fernholm Rita R Pukk Härenstam Karin K Wachtler Caroline C Nilsson Gunnar H GH Holzmann Martin J MJ Carlsson Axel C AC

The European journal of general practice 20190701 3

<b>Background:</b> Diagnostic errors are a major patient safety concern in primary healthcare and emergency care. These settings involve a high degree of uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and appear to be those most prone to diagnostic errors. Diagnostic errors comprise missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses preventing the patient from receiving correct and timely treatment. Data regarding which diagnoses are affected in these settings are scarce. <b>Objectives:</b> To understand the di ...[more]

PMID: 31257959

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMitigating or reducing the risk of harm associated with the delivery of healthcare is a policy priority. While the risk of harm can be reduced in some instances (i.e. preventable), what constitutes preventable harm remains unclear. A standardized and clear definition of preventable harm is the first step towards safer and more efficient healthcare delivery system. We aimed to summarize the definitions of preventable harm and its conceptualization in healthcare.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive electronic search of relevant databases from January 2001 to June 2011 for publications that reported a definition of preventable harm. Only English language publications were included. Definitions were coded for common concepts and themes. We included any study type, both original studies and reviews. Two reviewers screened the references for eligibility and 28% (127/460) were finally included. Data collected from studies included study type, description of the study population and setting, and data corresponding to the outcome of interest. Three reviewers extracted the data. The level of agreement between the reviewers was calculated.ResultsOne hundred and twenty seven studies were eligible. The three most prevalent preventable harms in the included studies were: medication adverse events (33/127 studies, 26%), central line infections (7/127, 6%) and venous thromboembolism (5/127, 4%). Seven themes or definitions for preventable harm were encountered. The top three were: presence of an identifiable modifiable cause (58/132 definitions, 44%), reasonable adaptation to a process will prevent future recurrence (30/132, 23%), adherence to guidelines (22/132, 16%). Data on the validity or operational characteristic (e.g., accuracy, reproducibility) of definitions were limited.ConclusionsThere is limited empirical evidence of the validity and reliability of the available definitions of preventable harm, such that no single one is supported by high quality evidence. The most common definition is "presence of an identifiable, modifiable cause of harm".

Project description:BackgroundAcademic and non-academic emergency departments (EDs) are regularly compared in clinical operations benchmarking despite suggestion that the two groups may differ in their clinical operations characteristics. and outcomes. We sought to describe and compare clinical operations characteristics of academic versus non-academic EDs.MethodsWe performed a descriptive, comparative analysis of academic and non-academic adult and general EDs with 40,000+ annual encounters, using the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM)/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) and Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) survey results. We defined academic EDs as primary teaching sites for emergency medicine (EM) residencies and non-academic EDs as sites with minimal resident involvement. We constructed the academic and non-academic cohorts from the AAAEM/AACEM and EDBA surveys, respectively, and analyzed metrics common to both surveys.ResultsEighty and 454 EDs met inclusion criteria for academic and non-academic EDs, respectively. Academic EDs had more median annual patient encounters (73,001 vs 54,393), lower median proportion of pediatric patients (6.3% vs 14.5%), higher median proportion of EMS patients (27% vs 19%), and were more commonly designated as Level I or II Trauma Centers (94% vs 24%). Median patient arrival-to-provider times did not differ (26 vs 25 min). Median length-of-stay was longer (277 vs 190 min) for academic EDs, and left-before-treatment-complete was higher (5.7% vs 2.9%). MRI utilization was higher for academic EDs (2.2% patients with at least one MRI vs 1.0 MRIs performed per 100 patients). Patients-per-hour of provider coverage was lower for academic EDs with and without consideration for advanced practice providers and residents.ConclusionsDemographic and operational performance measures differ between academic and non-academic EDs, suggesting that the two groups may be inappropriate operational performance comparators. Causes for the differences remain unclear but the differences appear not to be attributed solely to the academic mission.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden.

Publications

Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets