Laura Medford-Davis1, Elizabeth Park2, Gil Shlamovitz3, James Suliburk4, Ashley N D Meyer5, Hardeep Singh5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Section of Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and Harris Health System, Ben Taub General Hospital Emergency Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Michael E DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine and Harris Health System, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are harmful and costly. We reviewed a selected high-risk cohort of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain to evaluate for possible diagnostic errors and associated process breakdowns. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective chart review of ED patients >18 years at an urban academic hospital. A computerised 'trigger' algorithm identified patients possibly at high risk for diagnostic errors to facilitate selective record reviews. The trigger determined patients to be at high risk because they: (1) presented to the ED with abdominal pain, and were discharged home and (2) had a return ED visit within 10 days that led to a hospitalisation. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available during the first ED visit, regardless of patient harm, and included errors that involved both ED and non-ED providers. Errors were determined by two independent record reviewers followed by team consensus in cases of disagreement. RESULTS: Diagnostic errors occurred in 35 of 100 high-risk cases. Over two-thirds had breakdowns involving the patient-provider encounter (most commonly history-taking or ordering additional tests) and/or follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (most commonly follow-up of abnormal test results). The most frequently missed diagnoses were gallbladder pathology (n=10) and urinary infections (n=5). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic process breakdowns in ED patients with abdominal pain most commonly involved history-taking, ordering insufficient tests in the patient-provider encounter and problems with follow-up of abnormal test results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are harmful and costly. We reviewed a selected high-risk cohort of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain to evaluate for possible diagnostic errors and associated process breakdowns. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective chart review of ED patients >18 years at an urban academic hospital. A computerised 'trigger' algorithm identified patients possibly at high risk for diagnostic errors to facilitate selective record reviews. The trigger determined patients to be at high risk because they: (1) presented to the ED with abdominal pain, and were discharged home and (2) had a return ED visit within 10 days that led to a hospitalisation. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available during the first ED visit, regardless of patient harm, and included errors that involved both ED and non-ED providers. Errors were determined by two independent record reviewers followed by team consensus in cases of disagreement. RESULTS: Diagnostic errors occurred in 35 of 100 high-risk cases. Over two-thirds had breakdowns involving the patient-provider encounter (most commonly history-taking or ordering additional tests) and/or follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (most commonly follow-up of abnormal test results). The most frequently missed diagnoses were gallbladder pathology (n=10) and urinary infections (n=5). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic process breakdowns in ED patients with abdominal pain most commonly involved history-taking, ordering insufficient tests in the patient-provider encounter and problems with follow-up of abnormal test results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
abdomen- non trauma; diagnosis; errors; quality assurance; safety
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: Gianfranco Cervellin; Riccardo Mora; Andrea Ticinesi; Tiziana Meschi; Ivan Comelli; Fausto Catena; Giuseppe Lippi Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2016-10
Authors: Jacqueline A Griffin; Kevin Carr; Kerrin Bersani; Nicholas Piniella; Daniel Motta-Calderon; Maria Malik; Alison Garber; Kumiko Schnock; Ronen Rozenblum; David W Bates; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Anuj K Dalal Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2021-08-23
Authors: Faris Hussain; Alison Cooper; Andrew Carson-Stevens; Liam Donaldson; Peter Hibbert; Thomas Hughes; Adrian Edwards Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2019-12-04
Authors: Robert M Hamm; David M Kelley; Jose A Medina; Noreen S Syed; Geraint A Harris; Frank J Papa Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Ashley Nd Meyer; Dean F Sittig; Derek W Meeks; Eric J Thomas; Hardeep Singh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Artur Kacprzyk; Tomasz Stefura; Katarzyna Chłopaś; Kaja Trzeciak; Aleksandra Załustowicz; Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Michał Pędziwiatr; Kazimierz Rembiasz; Piotr Major Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2020-05-12