Literature DB >> 23610443

25-Year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986-2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Ali S Saber Tehrani1, HeeWon Lee, Simon C Mathews, Andrew Shore, Martin A Makary, Peter J Pronovost, David E Newman-Toker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterise the frequency, health outcomes and economic consequences of diagnostic errors in the USA through analysis of closed, paid malpractice claims.
METHODS: We analysed diagnosis-related claims from the National Practitioner Data Bank (1986-2010). We describe error type, outcome severity and payments (in 2011 US dollars), comparing diagnostic errors to other malpractice allegation groups and inpatient to outpatient within diagnostic errors.
RESULTS: We analysed 350 706 paid claims. Diagnostic errors (n=100 249) were the leading type (28.6%) and accounted for the highest proportion of total payments (35.2%). The most frequent outcomes were death, significant permanent injury, major permanent injury and minor permanent injury. Diagnostic errors more often resulted in death than other allegation groups (40.9% vs 23.9%, p<0.001) and were the leading cause of claims-associated death and disability. More diagnostic error claims were outpatient than inpatient (68.8% vs 31.2%, p<0.001), but inpatient diagnostic errors were more likely to be lethal (48.4% vs 36.9%, p<0.001). The inflation-adjusted, 25-year sum of diagnosis-related payments was US$38.8 billion (mean per-claim payout US$386 849; median US$213 250; IQR US$74 545-484 500). Per-claim payments for permanent, serious morbidity that was 'quadriplegic, brain damage, lifelong care' (4.5%; mean US$808 591; median US$564 300), 'major' (13.3%; mean US$568 599; median US$355 350), or 'significant' (16.9%; mean US$419 711; median US$269 255) exceeded those where the outcome was death (40.9%; mean US$390 186; median US$251 745).
CONCLUSIONS: Among malpractice claims, diagnostic errors appear to be the most common, most costly and most dangerous of medical mistakes. We found roughly equal numbers of lethal and non-lethal errors in our analysis, suggesting that the public health burden of diagnostic errors could be twice that previously estimated. Healthcare stakeholders should consider diagnostic safety a critical health policy issue.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse events, epidemiology and detection; Diagnostic errors; Medical error, measurement/epidemiology

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23610443     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001550

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


  74 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic error and neuro-ophthalmology.

Authors:  Leanne Stunkel; Nancy J Newman; Valérie Biousse
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 5.710

2.  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

3.  Identifying, Analyzing, and Visualizing Diagnostic Paths for Patients with Nonspecific Abdominal Pain.

Authors:  Goutham Rao; Katherine Kirley; Paul Epner; Yiye Zhang; Victoria Bauer; Rema Padman; Ying Zhou; Anthony Solomonides
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.342

4.  [Mimics in rheumatology : Possibilities for mistakes and differential diagnoses].

Authors:  I Kötter
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.372

5.  Diagnosis is a team sport - partnering with allied health professionals to reduce diagnostic errors: A case study on the role of a vestibular therapist in diagnosing dizziness.

Authors:  Dana B Thomas; David E Newman-Toker
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2016-05-31

6.  Outcomes of medical malpractice claims in assisted reproductive technology over a 10-year period from a single carrier.

Authors:  Gerard Letterie
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-02-11       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Addressing Ambulatory Safety and Malpractice: The Massachusetts PROMISES Project.

Authors:  Gordon D Schiff; Harry Reyes Nieva; Paula Griswold; Nicholas Leydon; Judy Ling; Madeleine Biondolillo; Sara J Singer
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 8.  [Cognitive errors in diagnostic decision making].

Authors:  Martin Gäbler
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2017-05-23

Review 9.  Understanding Decision Making in Critical Care.

Authors:  Geoffrey K Lighthall; Cristina Vazquez-Guillamet
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2015-09-20

10.  The impact of procedural sedation on diagnostic errors in pediatric echocardiography.

Authors:  Kenan W D Stern; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Tal Geva; Oscar J Benavidez
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 5.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.