Literature DB >> 28735302

Autopsy interrogation of emergency medicine dispute cases: how often are clinical diagnoses incorrect?

Danyang Liu1,2, Rongchang Gan3, Weidi Zhang1, Wei Wang1, Hexige Saiyin4, Wenjiao Zeng1, Guoyuan Liu1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Emergency medicine is a 'high risk' specialty. Some diseases develop suddenly and progress rapidly, and sudden unexpected deaths in the emergency department (ED) may cause medical disputes. We aimed to assess discrepancies between antemortem clinical diagnoses and postmortem autopsy findings concerning emergency medicine dispute cases and to figure out the most common major missed diagnoses.
METHODS: Clinical files and autopsy reports were retrospectively analysed and interpreted. Discrepancies between clinical diagnoses and autopsy diagnoses were evaluated using modified Goldman classification as major and minor discrepancy. The difference between diagnosis groups was compared with Pearson χ2 test.
RESULTS: Of the 117 cases included in this study, 71 of cases (58 class I and 13 class II diagnostic errors) were revealed as major discrepancies (60.7%). The most common major diagnoses were cardiovascular diseases (54 cases), followed by pulmonary diseases, infectious diseases and so on. The difference of major discrepancy between the diagnoses groups was significant (p<0.001). Aortic dissection and myocardial infarction were the most common cause of death (15 cases for each disease) and the most common missed class I diagnoses (80% and 66.7% for each), higher than the average 49.6% of all class I errors of the study patients.
CONCLUSIONS: High major disparities between clinical diagnoses and postmortem examinations exist in emergency medical disputes cases; acute aortic dissection and myocardial infarction are the most frequently major missed diagnoses that ED clinicians should pay special attention to in practice. This study reaffirmed the necessity and usefulness of autopsy in auditing death in EDs. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  autopsy pathology; cardiovascular diseases; diagnosis discrepancy; emergency medicine; medical dispute

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28735302     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2017-204484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  3 in total

1.  The dating of thrombus organization in cases of pulmonary embolism: an autopsy study.

Authors:  Gelsomina Mansueto; Dario Costa; Emanuele Capasso; Federica Varavallo; Giuseppina Brunitto; Rosanna Caserta; Salvatore Esposito; Massimo Niola; Celestino Sardu; Raffaele Marfella; Claudio Napoli; Mariano Paternoster
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 2.298

2.  Study on Proteomics-Based Aortic Dissection Molecular Markers Using iTRAQ Combined With Label Free Techniques.

Authors:  Ting Deng; Yongguang Liu; Akindavyi Gael; Xiaohua Fu; Xiaofang Deng; Yunfeng Liu; Yizhang Wu; Yingzhi Wu; Huimin Wang; Yuying Deng; Jun Lai; Qiang Fu
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  Clinico-pathological discrepancies in the diagnosis of causes of death in adults in Mozambique: A retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Jaume Ordi; Paola Castillo; Alberto L Garcia-Basteiro; Cinta Moraleda; Fabiola Fernandes; Llorenç Quintó; Juan Carlos Hurtado; Emili Letang; Lucilia Lovane; Dercio Jordao; Mireia Navarro; Rosa Bene; Tacilta Nhampossa; Mamudo R Ismail; Cesaltina Lorenzoni; Assucena Guisseve; Natalia Rakislova; Rosauro Varo; Lorena Marimon; Ariadna Sanz; Anelsio Cossa; Inacio Mandomando; Maria Maixenchs; Khátia Munguambe; Jordi Vila; Eusebio Macete; Pedro L Alonso; Quique Bassat; Miguel J Martínez; Carla Carrilho; Clara Menéndez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.