Literature DB >> 32412440

Rate of diagnostic errors and serious misdiagnosis-related harms for major vascular events, infections, and cancers: toward a national incidence estimate using the "Big Three".

David E Newman-Toker1,2,3, Zheyu Wang4,5, Yuxin Zhu4,5, Najlla Nassery6, Ali S Saber Tehrani1, Adam C Schaffer7,8, Chihwen Winnie Yu-Moe7, Gwendolyn D Clemens5, Mehdi Fanai1, Dana Siegal9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Missed vascular events, infections, and cancers account for ~75% of serious harms from diagnostic errors. Just 15 diseases from these "Big Three" categories account for nearly half of all serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims. As part of a larger project estimating total US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms, we performed a focused literature review to measure diagnostic error and harm rates for these 15 conditions.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google, and cited references. For errors, we selected high-quality, modern, US-based studies, if available, and best available evidence otherwise. For harms, we used literature-based estimates of the generic (disease-agnostic) rate of serious harms (morbidity/mortality) per diagnostic error and applied claims-based severity weights to construct disease-specific rates. Results were validated via expert review and comparison to prior literature that used different methods. We used Monte Carlo analysis to construct probabilistic plausible ranges (PPRs) around estimates.
RESULTS: Rates for the 15 diseases were drawn from 28 published studies representing 91,755 patients. Diagnostic error (false negative) rates ranged from 2.2% (myocardial infarction) to 62.1% (spinal abscess), with a median of 13.6% [interquartile range (IQR) 9.2-24.7] and an aggregate mean of 9.7% (PPR 8.2-12.3). Serious misdiagnosis-related harm rates per incident disease case ranged from 1.2% (myocardial infarction) to 35.6% (spinal abscess), with a median of 5.5% (IQR 4.6-13.6) and an aggregate mean of 5.2% (PPR 4.5-6.7). Rates were considered face valid by domain experts and consistent with prior literature reports.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic improvement initiatives should focus on dangerous conditions with higher diagnostic error and misdiagnosis-related harm rates. ©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnosis; diagnostic errors; health services research; medical errors; misdiagnosis-related harms

Year:  2020        PMID: 32412440     DOI: 10.1515/dx-2019-0104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)        ISSN: 2194-802X


  9 in total

1.  Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care and Its Impact on Patient Experience: an Integrative Systematic Review.

Authors:  Maria R Dahm; William Cattanach; Maureen Williams; Jocelyne M Basseal; Kelly Gleason; Carmel Crock
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Analysis of Variation Between Diagnosis at Admission vs Discharge and Clinical Outcomes Among Adults With Possible Bacteremia.

Authors:  Emma Dregmans; Anna G Kaal; Soufian Meziyerh; Nikki E Kolfschoten; Maarten O van Aken; Emile F Schippers; Ewout W Steyerberg; Cees van Nieuwkoop
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-06-01

3.  Unity Is Intelligence: A Collective Intelligence Experiment on ECG Reading to Improve Diagnostic Performance in Cardiology.

Authors:  Luca Ronzio; Andrea Campagner; Federico Cabitza; Gian Franco Gensini
Journal:  J Intell       Date:  2021-04-01

Review 4.  Bringing the clinical laboratory into the strategy to advance diagnostic excellence.

Authors:  Ira M Lubin; J Rex Astles; Shahram Shahangian; Bereneice Madison; Ritchard Parry; Robert L Schmidt; Matthew L Rubinstein
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2021-01-06

5.  Covid-19 pandemic lessons: uncritical communication of test results can induce more harm than benefit and raises questions on standardized quality criteria for communication and liability.

Authors:  Franz Porzsolt; Gerit Pfuhl; Robert M Kaplan; Martin Eisemann
Journal:  Health Psychol Behav Med       Date:  2021-09-21

6.  Customized low-cost high-throughput amplifier for electro-fluidic detection of cell volume changes in point-of-care applications.

Authors:  Saurabh Kaushik; Prabhakaran Selvanathan; Gautam Vivek Soni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Artificial neural network in the discrimination of lung cancer based on infrared spectroscopy.

Authors:  Eiron John Lugtu; Denise Bernadette Ramos; Alliah Jen Agpalza; Erika Antoinette Cabral; Rian Paolo Carandang; Jennica Elia Dee; Angelica Martinez; Julius Eleazar Jose; Abegail Santillan; Ruth Bangaoil; Pia Marie Albano; Rock Christian Tomas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  Cognitive biases encountered by physicians in the emergency room.

Authors:  Kotaro Kunitomo; Taku Harada; Takashi Watari
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2022-08-26

9.  Contributors to Diagnostic Error or Delay in the Acute Care Setting: A Survey of Clinical Stakeholders.

Authors:  Sarah Redmond; Amelia Barwise; Sarah Zornes; Yue Dong; Svetlana Herasevich; Yuliya Pinevich; Jalal Soleimani; Allison LeMahieu; Aaron Leppin; Brian Pickering
Journal:  Health Serv Insights       Date:  2022-09-13
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.