OBJECTIVE: Although autopsy is deemed the gold standard for diagnosis, its performance has been decreasing while adverse events have been increasing, of which 17% consist in diagnostic errors. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diagnostic errors based on anatomopathological diagnosis in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study on 31patients who died between 2004 and 2014. Diagnoses were compared in order to assess whether there was agreement between clinical major diagnosis (CMD) and the cause of death as described in the autopsy record (CDAR), which were classified according to the Goldman Criteria. RESULTS: Of 3,117 patients, 263 died (8.4%). Autopsy was conducted in 38 cases (14.4%), and 31 were included in the study. Therewas a 67% decrease in the number of autopsies over the last 10years. Absolute agreement between the diagnoses (class V) was observed in 18 cases (58.0%), and disagreement (class I), in 11 (35.4%). Therewas greater difficulty in diagnosing acute diseases and diseases of rapid fatal evolution such as myocarditis. Sevenpatients were admitted in critical health conditions and died within the first 24 hours of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Autopsy not only enables to identify diagnostic errors, but also provides the opportunity to learn from mistakes. The results emphasize the relevance of the autopsy examination for diagnostic elucidation and the creation of an information database concerning the main diagnoses of patients who rapidly progress to death in PICU, increasing the index of clinical suspicion of the team working at this unit.
OBJECTIVE: Although autopsy is deemed the gold standard for diagnosis, its performance has been decreasing while adverse events have been increasing, of which 17% consist in diagnostic errors. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diagnostic errors based on anatomopathological diagnosis in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study on 31patients who died between 2004 and 2014. Diagnoses were compared in order to assess whether there was agreement between clinical major diagnosis (CMD) and the cause of death as described in the autopsy record (CDAR), which were classified according to the Goldman Criteria. RESULTS: Of 3,117 patients, 263 died (8.4%). Autopsy was conducted in 38 cases (14.4%), and 31 were included in the study. Therewas a 67% decrease in the number of autopsies over the last 10years. Absolute agreement between the diagnoses (class V) was observed in 18 cases (58.0%), and disagreement (class I), in 11 (35.4%). Therewas greater difficulty in diagnosing acute diseases and diseases of rapid fatal evolution such as myocarditis. Sevenpatients were admitted in critical health conditions and died within the first 24 hours of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Autopsy not only enables to identify diagnostic errors, but also provides the opportunity to learn from mistakes. The results emphasize the relevance of the autopsy examination for diagnostic elucidation and the creation of an information database concerning the main diagnoses of patients who rapidly progress to death in PICU, increasing the index of clinical suspicion of the team working at this unit.
Authors: Mark L Graber; Stephanie Kissam; Velma L Payne; Ashley N D Meyer; Asta Sorensen; Nancy Lenfestey; Elizabeth Tant; Kerm Henriksen; Kenneth Labresh; Hardeep Singh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Bradford Winters; Jason Custer; Samuel M Galvagno; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Shruti G Kapoor; Heewon Lee; Victoria Goode; Karen Robinson; Atul Nakhasi; Peter Pronovost; David Newman-Toker Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Ana P C P Carlotti; Letícia G Bachette; Fabio Carmona; Paulo H Manso; Walter V A Vicente; Fernando S Ramalho Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2016-12-10 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Ian S D Roberts; Rachel E Benamore; Emyr W Benbow; Stephen H Lee; Jonathan N Harris; Alan Jackson; Susan Mallett; Tufail Patankar; Charles Peebles; Carl Roobottom; Zoe C Traill Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 79.321