Manish Suneja1, Susan E Beekmann1, Gurpreet Dhaliwal2,3, Aaron C Miller4, Philip M Polgreen1,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Medical Service, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic delays are a major source of morbidity and mortality. Despite the adverse outcomes associated with diagnostic delays, few studies have examined the incidence and factors that influence diagnostic delays for different infectious diseases. The objective of this study was to understand the relative frequency of diagnostic delays for six infectious diseases commonly seen by infectious diseases (ID) consultants and to examine contributing factors for these delays. METHODS: A 25-item survey to examine diagnostic delays in six infectious diseases was sent to all infectious diseases physicians in the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) who provide care to adult patients. Diseases included (1) tuberculosis, (2) non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections, (3) syphilis, (4) epidural abscess, (5) infective endocarditis, and (6) endemic fungal infections (e.g., histoplasmosis, blastomycosis). RESULTS: A total of 533 of 1,323 (40%) EIN members responded to the survey. Respondents perceived the diagnosis not being considered initially and the appropriate test not being ordered as the two most important contributors to diagnostic delays. Unusual clinical presentations and not consulting ID physicians early enough were also reported as a contributing factor to delays. Responses recorded in open-text fields also indicated errors related to testing as a likely cause of delays; specifically, test-related errors included ordering the wrong laboratory test, laboratory delays (specialized labs not available at the facility), and lab processing delays. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic delays commonly occur for the infectious diseases we considered. The contributing factors we identified are potential targets for future interventions to decrease diagnostic delays.
OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic delays are a major source of morbidity and mortality. Despite the adverse outcomes associated with diagnostic delays, few studies have examined the incidence and factors that influence diagnostic delays for different infectious diseases. The objective of this study was to understand the relative frequency of diagnostic delays for six infectious diseases commonly seen by infectious diseases (ID) consultants and to examine contributing factors for these delays. METHODS: A 25-item survey to examine diagnostic delays in six infectious diseases was sent to all infectious diseases physicians in the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) who provide care to adult patients. Diseases included (1) tuberculosis, (2) non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections, (3) syphilis, (4) epidural abscess, (5) infective endocarditis, and (6) endemic fungal infections (e.g., histoplasmosis, blastomycosis). RESULTS: A total of 533 of 1,323 (40%) EIN members responded to the survey. Respondents perceived the diagnosis not being considered initially and the appropriate test not being ordered as the two most important contributors to diagnostic delays. Unusual clinical presentations and not consulting ID physicians early enough were also reported as a contributing factor to delays. Responses recorded in open-text fields also indicated errors related to testing as a likely cause of delays; specifically, test-related errors included ordering the wrong laboratory test, laboratory delays (specialized labs not available at the facility), and lab processing delays. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic delays commonly occur for the infectious diseases we considered. The contributing factors we identified are potential targets for future interventions to decrease diagnostic delays.
Authors: Steven Schmitt; Daniel P McQuillen; Ronald Nahass; Lawrence Martinelli; Michael Rubin; Kay Schwebke; Russell Petrak; J Trees Ritter; David Chansolme; Thomas Slama; Edward M Drozd; Shamonda F Braithwaite; Michael Johnsrud; Eric Hammelman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Anthony D Bai; Adrienne Showler; Lisa Burry; Marilyn Steinberg; Daniel R Ricciuto; Tania Fernandes; Anna Chiu; Sumit Raybardhan; Michelle Science; Eshan Fernando; George Tomlinson; Chaim M Bell; Andrew M Morris Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sarah K Brode; Frances B Jamieson; Ryan Ng; Michael A Campitelli; Jeffrey C Kwong; J Michael Paterson; Ping Li; Alex Marchand-Austin; Claire Bombardier; Theodore K Marras Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Fariba M Donovan; Patrick Wightman; Yue Zong; Luke Gabe; Aneela Majeed; Tiffany Ynosencio; Edward J Bedrick; John N Galgiani Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Aaron C Miller; Linnea A Polgreen; Joseph E Cavanaugh; Douglas B Hornick; Philip M Polgreen Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Patrick B Mazi; Sandra R Arnold; John W Baddley; Nathan C Bahr; Susan E Beekmann; Todd P McCarty; Philip M Polgreen; Adriana M Rauseo; Andrej Spec Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.423