Literature DB >> 22822241

Diagnostic errors in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of autopsy studies.

Bradford Winters1, Jason Custer, Samuel M Galvagno, Elizabeth Colantuoni, Shruti G Kapoor, Heewon Lee, Victoria Goode, Karen Robinson, Atul Nakhasi, Peter Pronovost, David Newman-Toker.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Misdiagnoses may be an underappreciated cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Their prevalence, nature, and impact remain largely unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether potentially fatal ICU misdiagnoses would be more common than in the general inpatient population (~5%), and would involve more infections or vascular events. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of studies identified by electronic (MEDLINE, etc.) and manual searches (references in eligible articles) without language restriction (1966 through 2011). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA ABSTRACTION: Observational studies examining autopsy-confirmed diagnostic errors in the adult ICU were included. Studies analysing misdiagnosis of one specific disease were excluded. Study results (autopsy rate, misdiagnosis prevalence, Goldman error class, diseases misdiagnosed) were abstracted and descriptive statistics calculated. We modelled the prevalence of Class I (potentially lethal) misdiagnoses as a non-linear function of the autopsy rate.
RESULTS: Of 276 screened abstracts, 31 studies describing 5863 autopsies (median rate 43%) were analysed. The prevalence of misdiagnoses ranged from 5.5%-100% with 28% of autopsies reporting at least one misdiagnosis and 8% identifying a Class I diagnostic error. The projected prevalence of Class I misdiagnoses for a hypothetical autopsy rate of 100% was 6.3% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.5%). Vascular events and infections were the leading lethal misdiagnoses (41% each). The most common individual Class I misdiagnoses were PE, MI, pneumonia, and aspergillosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that as many as 40,500 adult patients in an ICU in USA may die with an ICU misdiagnoses annually. Despite this, diagnostic errors receive relatively little attention and research funding. Future studies should seek to prospectively measure the prevalence and impact of diagnostic errors and potential strategies to reduce them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22822241     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  56 in total

1.  Diagnostic errors in paediatric cardiac intensive care.

Authors:  Priya N Bhat; John M Costello; Ranjit Aiyagari; Paul J Sharek; Claudia A Algaze; Mjaye L Mazwi; Stephen J Roth; Andrew Y Shin
Journal:  Cardiol Young       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 1.093

2.  Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making.

Authors:  Dipesh P Gopal; Ula Chetty; Patrick O'Donnell; Camille Gajria; Jodie Blackadder-Weinstein
Journal:  Future Healthc J       Date:  2021-03

3.  Novel diagnostic technologies for clinical and frontline use: Advanced diagnostics based on molecular markers and analysis technologies has been improving diagnosis across a wide range of diseases.

Authors:  Philip Hunter
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 4.  Post-Mortem Examination as a Quality Improvement Instrument.

Authors:  Christian Wittekind; Tanja Gradistanac
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Invasive Fungal Infection.

Authors:  Marie von Lilienfeld-Toal; Johannes Wagener; Hermann Einsele; Oliver A Cornely; Oliver Kurzai
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-04-19       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Feasibility and Reliability Testing of Manual Electronic Health Record Reviews as a Tool for Timely Identification of Diagnostic Error in Patients at Risk.

Authors:  Jalal Soleimani; Yuliya Pinevich; Amelia K Barwise; Chanyan Huang; Yue Dong; Vitaly Herasevich; Ognjen Gajic; Brian W Pickering
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  Characteristics of distractions in the intensive care unit: how serious are they and who are at risk?

Authors:  Kay Choong See; Jason Phua; Amartya Mukhopadhyay; Tow Keang Lim
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.858

8.  The Value of Autopsy in Neonates in the 21st Century.

Authors:  Joline L H de Sévaux; Peter G J Nikkels; Maarten H Lequin; Floris Groenendaal
Journal:  Neonatology       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 4.035

9.  Surveillance or no surveillance ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis and outcomes of critically ill patients: a pre-planned sub-study of the PREVENT trial.

Authors:  Yaseen M Arabi; Karen E A Burns; Sami J Alsolamy; Mohammed S Alshahrani; Fahad M Al-Hameed; Zia Arshad; Mohammed Almaani; Hassan Hawa; Yasser Mandourah; Ghaleb A Almekhlafi; Abdulsalam Al Aithan; Imran Khalid; Jalal Rifai; Gulam Rasool; Sheryl Ann I Abdukahil; Jesna Jose; Lara Y Afesh; Abdulaziz Al-Dawood
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Factors Associated With Diagnostic Error on Admission to a PICU: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Christina L Cifra; Patrick Ten Eyck; Jeffrey D Dawson; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Hardeep Singh; Loreen A Herwaldt
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 3.624

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.