Christina L Cifra1, Kareen L Jones, Judith A Ascenzi, Utpal S Bhalala, Melania M Bembea, David E Newman-Toker, James C Fackler, Marlene R Miller. 1. 1Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. 2Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD. 4Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 5Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe diagnostic errors identified among patients discussed at a PICU morbidity and mortality conference in terms of Goldman classification, medical category, severity, preventability, contributing factors, and occurrence in the diagnostic process. DESIGN: Retrospective record review of morbidity and mortality conference agendas, patient charts, and autopsy reports. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Ninety-six patients discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference from November 2011 to December 2012. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 96 patients (93%) discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference had at least one identified safety event. A total of 377 safety events were identified. Twenty patients (21%) had identified misdiagnoses, comprising 5.3% of all safety events. Out of 20 total diagnostic errors identified, 35% were discovered at autopsy while 55% were reported primarily through the morbidity and mortality conference. Almost all diagnostic errors (95%) could have had an impact on patient survival or safety. Forty percent of errors did not cause actual patient harm, but 25% were severe enough to have potentially contributed to death (40% no harm vs 35% some harm vs 25% possibly contributed to death). Half of the diagnostic errors (50%) were rated as preventable. There were slightly more system-related factors (40%) solely contributing to diagnostic errors compared with cognitive factors (20%); however, 35% had both system and cognitive factors playing a role. Most errors involved vascular (35%) followed by neurologic (30%) events. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors in the PICU are not uncommon and potentially cause patient harm. Most appear to be preventable by targeting both cognitive- and system-related contributing factors. Prospective studies are needed to further determine how and why diagnostic errors occur in the PICU and what interventions would likely be effective for prevention.
OBJECTIVES: To describe diagnostic errors identified among patients discussed at a PICU morbidity and mortality conference in terms of Goldman classification, medical category, severity, preventability, contributing factors, and occurrence in the diagnostic process. DESIGN: Retrospective record review of morbidity and mortality conference agendas, patient charts, and autopsy reports. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Ninety-six patients discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference from November 2011 to December 2012. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 96 patients (93%) discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference had at least one identified safety event. A total of 377 safety events were identified. Twenty patients (21%) had identified misdiagnoses, comprising 5.3% of all safety events. Out of 20 total diagnostic errors identified, 35% were discovered at autopsy while 55% were reported primarily through the morbidity and mortality conference. Almost all diagnostic errors (95%) could have had an impact on patient survival or safety. Forty percent of errors did not cause actual patient harm, but 25% were severe enough to have potentially contributed to death (40% no harm vs 35% some harm vs 25% possibly contributed to death). Half of the diagnostic errors (50%) were rated as preventable. There were slightly more system-related factors (40%) solely contributing to diagnostic errors compared with cognitive factors (20%); however, 35% had both system and cognitive factors playing a role. Most errors involved vascular (35%) followed by neurologic (30%) events. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors in the PICU are not uncommon and potentially cause patient harm. Most appear to be preventable by targeting both cognitive- and system-related contributing factors. Prospective studies are needed to further determine how and why diagnostic errors occur in the PICU and what interventions would likely be effective for prevention.
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
Authors: Sonali Ramesh; Brennan Ayres; Patrick Ten Eyck; Jeffrey D Dawson; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Hardeep Singh; Loreen A Herwaldt; Christina L Cifra Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2022-04-11
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
Authors: Christina L Cifra; Kimberly C Dukes; Brennan S Ayres; Kelsey A Calomino; Loreen A Herwaldt; Hardeep Singh; Heather Schacht Reisinger Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 4.298