Literature DB >> 32269070

Prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Craig G Gunderson1,2, Victor P Bilan3,4, Jurgen L Holleck3, Phillip Nickerson3,2, Benjamin M Cherry3,2, Philip Chui3,2, Lori A Bastian3,2, Alyssa A Grimshaw5, Benjamin A Rodwin3,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is commonly defined as a missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis and has been described as among the most important patient safety hazards. Diagnostic errors also account for the largest category of medical malpractice high severity claims and total payouts. Despite a large literature on the incidence of inpatient adverse events, no systematic review has attempted to estimate the prevalence and nature of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from database inception through 9 July 2019. We included all studies of hospitalised adult patients that used physician review of case series of admissions and reported the frequency of diagnostic adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Harmful diagnostic error rates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies including 80 026 patients and 760 harmful diagnostic errors from consecutive or randomly selected cohorts were pooled. The pooled rate was 0.7% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.1%). Of the 136 diagnostic errors that were described in detail, a wide range of diseases were missed, the most common being malignancy (n=15, 11%) and pulmonary embolism (n=13, 9.6%). In the USA, these estimates correspond to approximately 249 900 harmful diagnostic errors yearly.
CONCLUSION: Based on physician review, at least 0.7% of adult admissions involve a harmful diagnostic error. A wide range of diseases are missed, including many common diseases. Fourteen diagnoses account for more than half of all diagnostic errors. The finding that a wide range of common diagnoses are missed implies that efforts to improve diagnosis must target the basic processes of diagnosis, including both cognitive and system-related factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018115186. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adverse events, epidemiology and detection; diagnostic errors; hospital medicine

Year:  2020        PMID: 32269070     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010822

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


  5 in total

1.  Analyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach.

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

2.  Should electronic differential diagnosis support be used early or late in the diagnostic process? A multicentre experimental study of Isabel.

Authors:  Matt Sibbald; Sandra Monteiro; Jonathan Sherbino; Andrew LoGiudice; Charles Friedman; Geoffrey Norman
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 7.418

3.  Does a suggested diagnosis in a general practitioners' referral question impact diagnostic reasoning: an experimental study.

Authors:  J Staal; M Speelman; R Brand; J Alsma; L Zwaan
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  A Case of Acute Cerebral Infarction With Chief Complaints of Abdominal Pain and Bloody Diarrhoea: The Power of a Patient-Centered Inclusive Diagnostic Team.

Authors:  Taichi Fujimori; Tsunetaka Kijima; Satoshi Honda; Shingo Yamagata; Tetsuya Makiishi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-07-28

5.  Incidence, origins and avoidable harm of missed opportunities in diagnosis: longitudinal patient record review in 21 English general practices.

Authors:  Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi; Fiona Holland; Hardeep Singh; Avril Danczak; Aneez Esmail; Rebecca Lauren Morris; Nicola Small; Richard Williams; Carl de Wet; Stephen M Campbell; David Reeves
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 7.418

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.