Search

We describe the case of Jessica Barnett, an adolescent girl whose repeated episodes of syncope and near-syncope were ascribed to a seizure or anxiety disorder. The correct diagnoses (congenital long QT syndrome; arrythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy) were established by autopsy and genetic studies only after her death at age 17. The perspective of the family is presented, along with an analysis of what went right and what went wrong in Jessica’s diagnostic journey. Key lessons in this case include the value of family as engaged members of the diagnostic team, that a ‘hyperventilation test’ should not be used to exclude cardiac origins of syncope or pre-syncope, and the inherent challenges in the diagnosis of the long QT syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The diagnostic process is a vital component of safe and effective emergency department (ED) care. There are no standardized methods for identifying or reliably monitoring diagnostic errors in the ED, impeding efforts to enhance diagnostic safety. We sought to identify trigger concepts to screen ED records for diagnostic errors and describe how they can be used as a measurement strategy to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm. Methods: We conducted a literature review and surveyed ED directors to compile a list of potential electronic health record (EHR) trigger (e-triggers) and non-EHR based concepts. We convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to build consensus on trigger concepts to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm in the ED. Results: Six e-trigger and five non-EHR based concepts were selected by the expert panel. E-trigger concepts included: unscheduled ED return to ED resulting in hospital admission, death following ED visit, care escalation, high-risk conditions based on symptom-disease dyads, return visits with new diagnostic/therapeutic interventions, and change of treating service after admission. Non-EHR based signals included: cases from mortality/morbidity conferences, risk management/ safety office referrals, ED medical director case referrals, patient complaints, and radiology/laboratory misreads and callbacks. The panel suggested further refinements to aid future research in defining diagnostic error epidemiology in ED settings. Conclusions: We identified a set of e-trigger concepts and non-EHR based signals that could be developed further to screen ED visits for diagnostic safety events. With additional evaluation, trigger-based methods can be used as tools to monitor and improve ED diagnostic performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Clinical laboratory testing provides essential data for making medical diagnoses. Generating accurate and timely test results clearly communicated to the treating clinician, and ultimately the patient, is a critical component that supports diagnostic excellence. On the other hand, failure to achieve this can lead to diagnostic errors that manifest in missed, delayed and wrong diagnoses. Content: Innovations that support diagnostic excellence address: 1) test utilization, 2) leveraging clinical and laboratory data, 3) promoting the use of credible information resources, 4) enhancing communication among laboratory professionals, health care providers and the patient, and 5) advancing the use of diagnostic management teams. Integrating evidence-based laboratory and patient-care quality management approaches may provide a strategy to support diagnostic excellence. Professional societies, government agencies, and healthcare systems are actively engaged in efforts to advance diagnostic excellence. Leveraging clinical laboratory capabilities within a healthcare system can measurably improve the diagnostic process and reduce diagnostic errors. Summary: An expanded quality management approach that builds on existing processes and measures can promote diagnostic excellence and provide a pathway to transition innovative concepts to practice. Outlook: There are increasing opportunities for clinical laboratory professionals and organizations to be part of a strategy to improve diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How the clinician interprets the radiology report has a major impact on the patient’s care. It is a crucial cognitive task, and can also be a significant source of error. Because the clinician must secondarily interpret the radiologist’s interpretation of the images, this step can be referred to as a “metainterpretation”. Some considerations for that task are offered from the perspective of a radiologist. A revival of the tradition of discussing cases with the radiologist is encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Few studies describe the impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) on recognizing and preventing diagnostic errors. Handshake stewardship (HS-ASP) is a novel ASP model that prospectively reviews hospital-wide antimicrobial usage with recommendations made in person to treatment teams. The purpose of this study was to determine if HS-ASP could identify and intervene on potential diagnostic errors for children hospitalized at a quaternary care children’s hospital. Methods: Previously self-identified “Great Catch” (GC) interventions by the Children’s Hospital Colorado HS-ASP team from 10/2014 through 5/2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Each GC was categorized based on the types of recommendations from HS-ASP, including if any diagnostic recommendations were made to the treatment team. Each GC was independently scored using the “Safer Dx Instrument” to determine presence of diagnostic error based on a previously determined cut-off score of ≤1.50. Interrater reliability for the instrument was measured using a randomized subset of one third of GCs. Results: During the study period, there were 162 GC interventions. Of these, 65 (40%) included diagnostic recommendations by HS-ASP and 19 (12%) had a Safer Dx Score of ≤1.50, (Κ=0.44; moderate agreement). Of those GCs associated with diagnostic errors, the HS-ASP team made a diagnostic recommendation to the primary treatment team 95% of the time. Conclusions: Handshake stewardship has the potential to identify and intervene on diagnostic errors for hospitalized children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides data on the diagnostic concordance between initial and review diagnoses of all breast core biopsy cases at a single tertiary hospital in Western Australia over a 1‐year period. A retrospective review of all breast core biopsy cases between January 1 and December 31, 2016, was carried out at PathWest, Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Each biopsy is reported by a single pathologist and then reviewed within 1 week by a panel of intradepartmental subspecialist breast pathologists, who either agree with the original diagnosis, have a minor discordant diagnosis, or a major discordant diagnosis. Records for 2036 core biopsies were available between January 1 and December 31, 2016. Of these, 56.0% (n = 1141) were classified as benign, 34.3% (n = 699) as malignant, 7.2% (n = 147) as indeterminate, 2.3% (n = 46) as nondiagnostic, and 0.1% (n = 3) as suspicious for malignancy. In 99.1% (n = 2018) of cases, there was agreement between initial and review diagnoses. In total, 0.9% (n = 18) were disagreements: 0.49% (n = 10) were major discordant disagreements and 0.39% (n = 8) were minor discordant disagreements. All cases of major discordant disagreements would have resulted in significant changes to clinical management. This study demonstrates that an Australian institution is providing a high‐quality pathology service with a low error rate between initial and review diagnoses of breast core biopsies. It reinforces the importance of secondary review of biopsies in a timely fashion for detecting potentially serious misdiagnoses that could lead to inappropriate management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnostic errors or delays can cause serious consequences for patient safety, especially in the emergency department. Anchoring bias is one of the major factors leading to diagnostic error. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the high probability of COVID-19 in febrile patients could be a major cause of anchoring bias leading to diagnostic error. In addition, certain evaluations such as auscultation are difficult to perform on a casual basis due to the increased risk of contact infection, which lead to inadequate assessment of the patients with valvular disease. Acute mitral regurgitation (MR) could be a fatal disease in the emergency department, especially if there is a diagnostic error or delay in diagnosis. It is often reported that diagnosis can be difficult even though there is no treatment other than emergent surgery. The diagnosis of acute MR has become more difficult because coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic could affect our daily practice especially in febrile patients. We report a case of a diagnostic delay of a febrile patient because of anchoring bias during the COVID-19 pandemic. Case presentation: A 45-year-old man presented to the emergency department complaining of acute dyspnea and fever. Based on vital signs and computed tomography of the chest, acute pneumonia due to COVID-19 was suspected. Auscultation was avoided because of facility rule based on concern of contact infection. After admission to the intensive care unit, Doppler echocardiography revealed acute mitral regurgitation, and transesophageal echocardiography revealed mitral valve tendon rupture. After confirming the negative result for the polymerase chain reaction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, mitral valvuloplasty was performed on the third day after admission. The patient was discharged 14 days after admission without complications. Conclusions: In COVID-19 pandemic, anchoring bias suspecting COVID-19 among febrile patients becomes a strong heuristic factor. A thorough history and physical examination is still important in febrile patients presenting with dyspnea to ensure the correct diagnosis of acute mitral regurgitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Posterior circulation stroke (PCS), caused by infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system, is a potentially life-threatening condition and accounts for about 20–25% of all ischemic strokes. Diagnosing PCS can be challenging due to the vast area of brain tissue supplied by the posterior circulation and, as a consequence, the wide range of—frequently non-specific—symptoms. Commonly used prehospital stroke scales and triage systems do not adequately represent signs and symptoms of PCS, which may also escape detection by cerebral imaging. All these factors may contribute to causing delay in recognition and diagnosis of PCS in the emergency context. This narrative review approaches the issue of diagnostic error in PCS from different perspectives, including anatomical and demographic considerations as well as pitfalls and problems associated with various stages of prehospital and emergency department assessment. Strategies and approaches to improve speed and accuracy of recognition and early management of PCS are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge of possible drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is important for the interpretation of laboratory test results. Failure to recognize these interactions may lead to misinterpretation, a delayed or erroneous diagnosis, or unnecessary extra diagnostic tests or therapy, which may harm patients. The aim of this multicentre survey was to evaluate the clinical value of DLTI alerts. A survey was designed with six predefined clinical cases selected from the clinical laboratory practice with a potential DLTI. Physicians from several departments, including internal medicine, cardiology, intensive care, surgery and geriatrics in six participating hospitals were recruited to fill in the survey. The survey addressed their knowledge of DLTIs, motivation to receive an alert and opinion on the potential influence on medical decision making. A total of 210 physicians completed the survey. Of these respondents 93% had a positive attitude towards receiving DLTI alerts; however, the reported value differed per case and per respondent's background. In each clinical case, medical decision making was influenced as a consequence of the reported DLTI message (ranging from 3 to 45% of respondents per case). In this multicentre survey, most physicians stated DLTI messages to be useful in laboratory test interpretation. Medical decision making was influenced by reporting DLTI alerts in each case. Alerts should be adjusted according to the needs and preferences of the receiving physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives: At our institution, a new medical student elective was designed and implemented by the department of radiology to teach medical students about diagnostic error. The purpose of this article is to describe the diagnostic error elective structure and implementation, present objective and subjective evaluations of the elective, and provide a model for other radiology departments to run their own electives.Materials and Methods: Starting in January 2018, a 2-week in-person career exploration session elective was offered for third year medical students. In 2020 due to the COVID pandemic, the elective was expanded to fourth year medical students. All students were required to complete a project that addressed diagnostic error. Subjective comments were recorded, and objective measurements obtained from student evaluations.Results: A total of 11 sessions were held, consisting of 3 fourth year and 26 third year students. A total of 12 projects (11 groups) were completed, seven of which have been accepted for presentation at national meetings. On a 1 to 5 scale (5 highest), students rated their educational experience at a mean score of 4.61. Subjective comments focused on the benefit of exposure to new topics, mentorship by radiologists, and ability to complete a project in such a short time.Conclusion: Diagnostic errors and solutions are vague, new concepts to medical students and even facilitator faculty. This course allowed students to gain awareness of diagnostic error and could easily be replicated at other institutions with interested faculty and medical school support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missed or delayed diagnosis of acute stroke, or false-negative stroke (FNS), at initial emergency department (ED) presentation occurs in ≈9% of confirmed stroke patients. Failure to rapidly diagnose stroke can preclude time-sensitive treatments, resulting in higher risks of severe sequelae and disability. In this study, we developed and tested a modified version of a structured medical record review tool, the Safer Dx Instrument, to identify FNS in a subgroup of hospitalized patients with stroke to gain insight into sources of ED stroke misdiagnosis.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at 2 unaffiliated comprehensive stroke centers. In the development and confirmatory cohorts, we applied the Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument to report the prevalence and documented sources of ED diagnostic error in FNS cases among confirmed stroke patients upon whom an acute stroke was suspected by the inpatient team, as evidenced by stroke code activation or urgent neurological consultation, but not by the ED team. Inter-rater reliability and agreement were assessed using interclass coefficient and kappa values (κ).Results: Among 183 cases in the development cohort, the prevalence of FNS was 20.2% (95% CI, 15.0-26.7). Too narrow a differential diagnosis and limited neurological examination were common potential sources of error. The interclass coefficient for the Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument items ranged from 0.42 to 0.91, and items were highly correlated with each other. The κ for diagnostic error identification was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.821-0.978) using the Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument. In the confirmatory cohort of 99 cases, the prevalence of FNS was 21.2% (95% CI, 14.2-30.3) with similar sources of diagnostic error identified.Conclusions: Hospitalized patients identified by stroke codes and requests for urgent neurological consultation represent an enriched population for the study of diagnostic error in the ED. The Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument is a reliable tool for identifying FNS and sources of diagnostic error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Infective endocarditis (IE) demonstrates a broad array of clinical presentations and complications. However, IE with prominent abdominal findings is uncommon. We encountered a case of IE caused by Staphylococcus aureus that presented a large mesenteric abscess and was initially diagnosed as an intra-abdominal infection. There are few reports of IE with mesenteric abscess formation. Even if an intra-abdominal abscess is the main symptom, the possibility that it is part of a systemic infection should be considered if the causative organism is atypical or if symptoms are present in multiple organs. Physicians should always be aware of the possibility that IE may mimic other diseases, including intra-abdominal infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 30th, 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first travel-associated case of US Ebola in Dallas, TX. This case exposed two of the greatest concerns in patient safety in the US outpatient health care system: misdiagnosis and ineffective use of electronic health records (EHRs). The case received widespread media attention highlighting failures in disaster management, infectious disease control, national security, and emergency department (ED) care. In addition, an error in making a correct and timely Ebola diagnosis on initial ED presentation brought diagnostic decision-making vulnerabilities in the EHR era into the public eye. In this paper, we use this defining "teachable moment" to highlight the public health challenge of diagnostic errors and discuss the effective use of EHRs in the diagnostic process. We analyze the case to discuss several missed opportunities and outline key challenges and opportunities facing diagnostic decision-making in EHR-enabled health care. It is important to recognize the reality that EHRs suffer from major usability and inter-operability issues, but also to acknowledge that they are only tools and not a replacement for basic history-taking, examination skills, and critical thinking. While physicians and health care organizations ultimately need to own the responsibility for addressing diagnostic errors, several national-level initiatives can help, including working with software developers to improve EHR usability. Multifaceted approaches that account for both technical and non-technical factors will be needed. Ebola US Patient Zero reminds us that in certain cases, a single misdiagnosis can have widespread and costly implications for public health.

Abstract Background Diagnostic error occurs more frequently in the emergency department than in regular in-patient hospital care. We sought to characterise the nature of reported diagnostic error in hospital emergency departments in England and Wales from 2013 to 2015 and to identify the priority areas for intervention to reduce their occurrence. Methods A cross-sectional mixed-methods design using an exploratory descriptive analysis and thematic analysis of patient safety incident reports. Primary data were extracted from a national database of patient safety incidents. Reports were filtered for emergency department settings, diagnostic error (as classified by the reporter), from 2013 to 2015. These were analysed for the chain of events, contributory factors and harm outcomes. Results There were 2288 cases of confirmed diagnostic error: 1973 (86%) delayed and 315 (14%) wrong diagnoses. One in seven incidents were reported to have severe harm or death. Fractures were the most common condition (44%), with cervical-spine and neck of femur the most frequent types. Other common conditions included myocardial infarctions (7%) and intracranial bleeds (6%). Incidents involving both delayed and wrong diagnoses were associated with insufficient assessment, misinterpretation of diagnostic investigations and failure to order investigations. Contributory factors were predominantly human factors, including staff mistakes, healthcare professionals’ inadequate skillset or knowledge and not following protocols. Conclusions Systems modifications are needed that provide clinicians with better support in performing patient assessment and investigation interpretation. Interventions to reduce diagnostic error need to be evaluated in the emergency department setting, and could include standardised checklists, structured reporting and technological investigation improvements.

Abstract Background The patient state index (PSI) is a parameter of a four-channel electroencephalography (EEG)-derived variable used to assess the depth of anesthesia. A PSI value of 25–50 indicates adequate state of hypnosis, and a value of 100 indicates a fully awake state. Due to reduced interference from electronic devices like electrocautery, falsely high intraoperative PSI values are rarely reported. However, this case report cautions about falsely high PSI during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP). Case presentation A 68-year-old man was scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery with IABP. General anesthesia was maintained using sevoflurane. Initial PSI was between 30 and 50 before CPB. Propofol was administered during CPB, and IABP provided pulsatile flow. IABP was stopped soon after the initiation of CPB, and the ascending aorta was partially clamped to anastomose the saphenous vein graft to the ascending aorta. The PSI value decreased drastically, but with resumption of IABP, the value increased to approximately 80, despite increasing the dose of anesthetics. Meanwhile, the EEG waveform was nearly flat. After discontinuing CPB, the PSI value returned to being extremely low. There was no evidence of intraoperative awareness or instrument trouble. After reviewing the anesthesia record, the high PSI value was almost consistent with ongoing IABP during CPB. We suspect that the oscillation noise created by IABP during CPB erroneously influences the PSI algorithm, resulting in a falsely high PSI. Conclusions Anesthesiologists should note that adherence to pEEG-derived values without discretion may cause errors when monitoring the depth of anesthesia.

Abstract Background To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and communication strategies to reduce diagnostic errors made by clinicians. Methods MEDLINE complete, CINHAL complete, EMBASE, PSNet and Google Advanced. Electronic and manual search of articles on audit systems and communication strategies or interventions, searched for papers published between January 1990 and April 2017. We included studies with interventions implemented by clinicians in a clinical environment with real patients. Results A total of 2431 articles were screened of which 26 studies met inclusion criteria. Data extraction was conducted by two groups, each group comprising two independent reviewers. Articles were classified by communication (6) or audit strategies (20) to reduce diagnostic error in clinical settings. The most common interventions were delivered as technology-based systems n = 16 (62%) and within an acute care setting n = 15 (57%). Nine studies reported randomised controlled trials. Three RCT studies on communication interventions and 3 RCTs on audit strategies found the interventions to be effective in reducing diagnostic errors. Conclusion Despite numerous studies on interventions targeting diagnostic errors, our analyses revealed limited evidence on interventions being practically used in clinical settings and a bias of studies originating from the US (n = 19, 73% of included studies). There is some evidence that trigger algorithms, including computer based and alert systems, may reduce delayed diagnosis and improve diagnostic accuracy. In trauma settings, strategies such as additional patient review (e.g. trauma teams) reduced missed diagnosis and in radiology departments review strategies such as team meetings and error documentation may reduce diagnostic error rates over time. Trial registration The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42017067056.

Diagnostic investigations (pathology laboratory and medical imaging) aim to: increase certainty of the presence or absence of disease by supporting the process of differential diagnosis; support clinical management; and monitor a patient's trajectory (e. g., disease progression or response to treatment). Digital health can be defined as the collection, storage, retrieval, transmission, and utilization of data, information, and knowledge to support healthcare. Digital health has become an essential component of the diagnostic process, helping to facilitate the accuracy and timeliness of information transfer and enhance the effectiveness of decision-making processes. Digital health is also important to diagnostic stewardship, which involves coordinated guidance and interventions to ensure the appropriate utilization of diagnostic tests for therapeutic decision-making. Diagnostic stewardship and informatics are thus important in efforts to establish shared decision-making. This is because they contribute to the establishment of shared information platforms (enabling patients to read, comment on, and share in decisions about their care) based on timely and meaningful communication. This paper will outline key diagnostic informatics and stewardship initiatives across three interrelated fields: (1) diagnostic error and the establishment of outcomes-based diagnostic research; (2) the safety and effectiveness of test result management and follow-up; and (3) digitally enhanced decision support systems.

Abstract Psychiatric comorbidities are common among individuals with ARFID and may contribute to a failure to establish an accurate diagnosis, delayed diagnosis, and poor long‐term prognosis, especially among children and adolescents.

A 79-year-old woman presented with left retro-orbital pain, headache and blurred vision. Based on negative radiological tests, life-threatening conditions like subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) were ruled out and outpatient follow-up was planned. However, the patient returned to the hospital that night because of progressively declining consciousness and was diagnosed with SAH by head computed tomography. The diagnosis of SAH is often challenging, especially in cases with negative radiological results. We describe some strategies, other than radiological examination, for ruling out SAH, such as performing a lumbar puncture and repeating tests to take account of disease progression, and describe biases which can affect clinical decision-making.

The purpose of this review is to describe the potential sources of variability or discrepancy in interpretation of cystic renal masses under the Bosniak v2019 classification system. Strategies to avoid these pitfalls and clinical examples of diagnostic approaches are also presented. Potential pitfalls in the application of Bosniak v2019 are divided into three categories: interpretative, technical, and mass related. An organized, comprehensive review of possible discrepancies in interpreting Bosniak v2019 cystic masses is presented with pictorial examples of difficult clinical cases and proposed solutions. The scheme provided can guide readers to consistent, precise application of the classification system. Radiologists should be aware of the possible sources of misinterpretation of cystic renal masses when applying Bosniak v2019. Knowing which features and types of cystic masses are prone to interpretive errors, in addition to the inherent trade-offs between the CT and MR techniques used to characterize them, can help radiologists avoid these pitfalls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychiatric comorbidities are common among individuals with ARFID and may contribute to a failure to establish an accurate diagnosis, delayed diagnosis, and poor long-term prognosis, especially among children and adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using case review to determine whether a patient experienced a delayed diagnosis is challenging. Measurement would be more accurate if case reviewers had access to multi-expert consensus on grading the likelihood of delayed diagnosis. Our objective was to use expert consensus to create a guide for objectively grading the likelihood of delayed diagnosis of appendicitis, new-onset diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and sepsis. Case vignettes were constructed for each condition. In each vignette, a patient has the condition and had a previous emergency department (ED) visit within 7 days. Condition-specific multi-specialty expert Delphi panels reviewed the case vignettes and graded the likelihood of a delayed diagnosis on a five-point scale. Delayed diagnosis was defined as the condition being present during the previous ED visit. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. In each Delphi round, panelists were given the scores from the previous round and asked to rescore. A case scoring guide was created from the consensus scores. Eighteen expert panelists participated. Consensus was achieved within three Delphi rounds for all appendicitis and sepsis vignettes. We reached consensus on 23/30 (77%) DKA vignettes. A case review guide was created from the consensus scores. Multi-specialty expert reviewers can agree on the likelihood of a delayed diagnosis for cases of appendicitis and sepsis, and for most cases of DKA. We created a guide that can be used by researchers and quality improvement specialists to allow for objective case review to determine when delayed diagnoses have occurred for appendicitis, DKA, and sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Timely diagnosis of pediatric sepsis remains elusive. We estimated the risk of potentially missed pediatric sepsis in US emergency departments (EDs) and determined factors associated with its occurrence. In a retrospective study of linked inpatient and ED records from four states using administrative data (excluding 40% with missing identifiers), we identified children admitted with severe sepsis and/or septic shock who had at least one ED treat-and-release visit in the 7 days prior to sepsis admission. An expert panel rated the likelihood of each ED visit being related to subsequent sepsis admission. We used multivariable regression to identify associations with potentially missed sepsis. Of 1945 patients admitted with severe sepsis/septic shock, 158 [8.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9%–9.4%] had potentially missed sepsis during an antecedent treat-and-release ED visit. The odds of potentially missed sepsis were lower for each additional comorbid chronic condition [odds ratio (OR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80–0.92] and higher in California (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.34–3.82), Florida (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.95–5.70), and Massachusetts (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.35–6.09), compared to New York. Administrative data can be used to screen large populations for potentially missed sepsis and identify cases that warrant detailed record review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Academy of Medicine identified diagnostic error as a pressing public health concern and defined failure to effectively communicate the diagnosis to patients as a diagnostic error. Leveraging Patient's Experience to improve Diagnosis (LEAPED) is a new program for measuring patient-reported diagnostic error. As a first step, we sought to assess the feasibility of using LEAPED after emergency department (ED) discharge. We deployed LEAPED using a cohort design at three EDs within one academic health system. We enrolled 59 patients after ED discharge and queried them about their health status and understanding of the explanation for their health problems at 2-weeks, 1-month, and 3-months. We measured response rates and demographic/clinical predictors of patient uptake of LEAPED. Of those enrolled (n=59), 90% (n=53) responded to the 2-week post-ED discharge questionnaire (1 and 3-month ongoing). Of the six non-responders, one died and three were hospitalized at two weeks. The average age was 50 years (SD 16) and 64% were female; 53% were white and 41% were black. Over a fifth (23%) reported they were not given an explanation of their health problem on leaving the ED, and of those, a fourth (25%) did not have an understanding of what next steps to take after leaving the ED. Patient uptake of LEAPED was high, suggesting that patient-report may be a feasible method of evaluating the effectiveness of diagnostic communication to patients though further testing in a broader patient population is essential. Future research should determine if LEAPED yields important insights into the quality and safety of diagnostic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about how physician diagnostic thinking unfolds over time when evaluating patients. We designed a case-based simulation to understand how physicians reason, create differential diagnoses, and employ strategies to achieve a correct diagnosis. Between June 2017 and August 2018, hospital medicine physicians at two academic medical centers were presented a standardized case of a patient presenting with chest pain who was ultimately diagnosed with herpes zoster using an interview format. Case information was presented in predetermined aliquots where participants were then asked to think-aloud, describing their thoughts and differential diagnoses given the data available. At the conclusion of the interview, participants were asked questions about their diagnostic process. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analysis was conducted to identify key themes related to the diagnostic thinking process. Sixteen hospital medicine physicians (nine men, seven women) participated in interviews and four obtained the correct final diagnosis (one man, three women). Participants had an average of nine years of experience. Overall, substantial heterogeneity in both the differential diagnoses and clinical reasoning among participants was observed. Those achieving the correct diagnosis utilized systems-based or anatomic approaches when forming their initial differential diagnoses, rather than focusing on life-threatening diagnoses alone. Evidence of cognitive bias was common; those with the correct diagnosis more often applied debiasing strategies than those with the incorrect final diagnosis. Heterogeneity in diagnostic evaluation appears to be common and may indicate faulty data processing. Structured approaches and debiasing strategies appear helpful in promoting diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The National Academy of Medicine recently highlighted the urgent issue of medical diagnostic errors, and their first recommendation to address this issue explicitly called for promoting the key role of the nurse in the diagnostic process. • Strengthening instruction on the diagnostic process in the didactic and clinical nursing curriculum will better prepare nurses to participate on the diagnostic team, and ultimately achieve better diagnostic outcomes for patients. • Updating an already complex, full curriculum is a challenge; however, much of the currently included content is well-aligned with the competencies needed to prepare nurses to effectively contribute on the diagnostic team and it is a matter of explicitly linking the content to the diagnostic process. Diagnostic errors are among the most common medical errors and the deadliest. The National Academy of Medicine recently concluded that diagnostic errors represent an urgent national concern. Their first recommendation to address this issue called for promoting the key role of the nurse in the diagnostic process. Registered nurses across clinical settings significantly contribute to the medical diagnostic process, though their role in diagnosis has historically gone unacknowledged. In this paper, we review the history and current state of diagnostic education in pre-licensure registered nurse preparation, introduce interprofessional individual- and team-based competencies to improve diagnostic safety, and discuss the next steps for nursing education. Nurses educated and empowered to fully participate in the diagnostic process are essential for achieving better, safer patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of histopathologic diagnostic discrepancy for patients referred to our institution, identify pathologies susceptible to diagnostic error, and assess the impact on survival of histopathologic diagnostic discrepancies. Methods: Three hundred ninety‐seven patients with sinonasal cancers were identified, and discordance between the outside pathologic report and MD Anderson Cancer Center pathologic report was assessed. Overall survival and disease‐specific survival were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and log rank methods. Results: Discordance of major histopathologic diagnoses was present in 24% (97 of 397) of reports, with sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma, sarcoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma pathologies having the highest change in diagnosis (P <.01). A further 61% (244 of 397) had minor changes such as histologic grade, subtype, or stage, with sarcoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma pathologies being most susceptible to change (P <.02). Overall, the 5‐year overall survival (OS) and disease‐specific survival (DSS) was reduced in patients with a major change in histopathologic diagnosis (59.2% vs. 70.2% (P =.02) and 72.9% vs. 81.2% (P =.02), respectively). Furthermore, patients with a major change in diagnosis and prior treatment experienced a significant reduction in 5‐year OS (61.9% vs. 70.4%, P =.03 <.01) and DSS (72.4% vs. 81.5%, P =.04). Conclusion: Histopathological diagnosis of sinonasal tumors is complex and challenging given the rarity of the disease. Obtaining the correct diagnosis is important for treatment selection and survival. In histologies prone to misdiagnoses, obtaining a second opinion from experienced head and neck pathologists at a high‐volume institution may potentially lead to a change in treatment recommendations that could result in improved survival in patients with sinonasal malignancies. Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1468–E1475, 2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnostic errors have been attributed to cognitive biases (reasoning shortcuts), which are thought to result from fast reasoning. Suggested solutions include slowing down the reasoning process. However, slower reasoning is not necessarily more accurate than faster reasoning. In this study, we studied the relationship between time to diagnose and diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We conducted a multi-center within-subjects experiment where we prospectively induced availability bias (using Mamede et al.’s methodology) in 117 internal medicine residents. Subsequently, residents diagnosed cases that resembled those bias cases but had another correct diagnosis. We determined whether residents were correct, incorrect due to bias (i.e. they provided the diagnosis induced by availability bias) or due to other causes (i.e. they provided another incorrect diagnosis) and compared time to diagnose. Results: We did not successfully induce bias: no significant effect of availability bias was found. Therefore, we compared correct diagnoses to all incorrect diagnoses. Residents reached correct diagnoses faster than incorrect diagnoses (115 s vs. 129 s, p < .001). Exploratory analyses of cases where bias was induced showed a trend of time to diagnose for bias diagnoses to be more similar to correct diagnoses (115 s vs 115 s, p = .971) than to other errors (115 s vs 136 s, p = .082). Conclusions: We showed that correct diagnoses were made faster than incorrect diagnoses, even within subjects. Errors due to availability bias may be different: exploratory analyses suggest a trend that biased cases were diagnosed faster than incorrect diagnoses. The hypothesis that fast reasoning leads to diagnostic errors should be revisited, but more research into the characteristics of cognitive biases is important because they may be different from other causes of diagnostic errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neurosurgery is a specialty associated with high risk of malpractice claims, which can be influenced by quality and safety of care. Diagnostic errors have gained increasing attention as a potentially preventable problem. Despite the burden of diagnostic errors, few studies have analyzed diagnostic errors in neurosurgery. We aimed to delineate the effect of diagnostic errors on malpractice claims involving a neurosurgeon. This retrospective study used the national Japanese malpractice claims database and included cases closed between 1961 and 2017. To examine the effect of diagnostic errors in neurosurgery, we compared diagnostic error–related claims (DERCs) with non-DERCs in indemnity, clinical outcomes, and factors relating to neurosurgeons. There were 95 closed malpractice claims involving neurosurgeons during the study period. Of these claims, 36 (37.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 28.7%–47.9%) were DERCs. Patient death was the most common outcome associated with DERCs. Wrong, delayed, and missed diagnosis occurred in 25 (69.4%, 95% CI 53.1%–82.0%), 4 (11.1%, 95% CI 4.4%–25.3%), and 7 (19.4%, 95% CI 9.8%–35.0%) cases, respectively. The most common presenting medical condition in DERCs was stroke. Subarachnoid hemorrhage, accounting for 85.7% of stroke cases, led to 27.8% of the total indemnity paid in DERCs. DERCs are associated with higher numbers of accepted claims and worse outcomes. Identifying diagnostic errors is important in neurosurgery, and countermeasures are required to reduce the burden on neurosurgeons and improve quality. This is the first study to focus on diagnostic errors in malpractice claims arising from neurosurgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missed test‐results and failure to follow‐up test‐results are major patient safety concerns. Strategies to improve test‐results management have predominantly focused on clinician‐based interventions, with patients principally involved in studies of test‐result communication preferences, the impact of patient portals or experiences with reporting processes in primary care. Objective: To identify consumer perspectives and experiences of the challenges they have faced with test‐results management, through consumer participation in qualitative data analysis. Design and participants: Volunteers (n = 10) were recruited to participate in a health consumer reference group workshop on test‐results management. Prior to the workshop, consumers selected topics for discussion using a preference poll. During the workshop, consumers participated in qualitative data analysis of de‐identified excerpts of previously collected interview data discussing hospital test‐results management. Researchers (n = 5) guided consumers through the analytical process and discussion of themes. Discussions were audio‐recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Results: Consumer‐selected topics for discussion were 'Transitions of Care' and 'Access'. Consumer data analysis prompted broader discussion including lived experiences. Following the workshop, a second level of content analysis pinpointed issues with implications for patient safety highlighting that consumers were astutely aware of macrolevel 'Systems Factors' relating to 'Emergency Departments' and the health system, as well as microlevel 'Patient Factors' (eg patient preferences and circumstances) which impact a patient's understanding during the 'Communication' (clinician to patient/between clinicians) of test‐results 'Information' (or lack thereof). Conclusions: Consumers identified the challenges patients experience with test‐results management, and our findings highlight areas for potential improvement in patient safety. Patient or public contribution: Ten health consumer volunteers actively participated in the test‐results management data analysis workshop conducted in this study. Two health consumers also volunteered to read and comment on the draft manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS To identify the incidence of iatrogenic events leading to paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission and to analyse these patients regarding demographic, illness severity and outcome parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a retrospective case series. The computerised charts of all patients admitted to the multidisciplinary, tertiary, 18-bed PICU in 2014 were analysed. Iatrogenic events leading to PICU admission were identified and their preventability assessed. Underlying diseases, causes of iatrogenic events, illness severity at PICU admission, presence of complex chronic conditions, patient origin, length of stay on the PICU and outcome were analysed. RESULTS There were 138 admissions associated with iatrogenic events out of 1102 admissions (12.5%). Ninety iatrogenic events led to unplanned admissions and 48 cases concerned scheduled admissions, where the iatrogenic event would have led to PICU admission by itself or caused a second, planned PICU admission for re-operation. Iatrogenic complications during surgery (31% of all iatrogenic events), wrong management decisions / delayed diagnoses (20%) and nosocomial infections (14%) were the categories most often involved. Regarding origin of the patients, the greatest difference between iatrogenic event admissions and non-iatrogenic event admissions was found for the ward (21% vs 11%). The patients admitted for iatrogenic events had a higher mean expected mortality (8.4 vs 4.7%, p = 0.02) and a higher observed PICU mortality (5.8 vs 3.3%, p = 0.15). Of all iatrogenic events, 60.1% were judged to be preventable. The highest preventability rate was found in the categories “nosocomial infections” (100%) and “management decisions / delayed diagnoses” (92.9%). CONCLUSION In our setting, the number of PICU admissions associated with iatrogenic events is significant and comparable to adult data on admission to ICU caused by iatrogenic events. The categories with most potential for improvement are nosocomial infections and the wrong management decisions / delayed diagnoses. Focused measures on these iatrogenic events may have a major impact on patient outcome, availability of PICU resources and healthcare costs.

Use of telemedicine for diagnosis (sometimes called telediagnosis) and of teamwork's role in telediagnosis, has received little attention. Keywords: diagnostic error; error recovery; situativity; teamwork; telediagnosis; telemedicine EN diagnostic error error recovery situativity teamwork telediagnosis telemedicine 282 284 3 05/12/22 20220501 NES 220501 To the Editor, The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated use of telemedicine across all healthcare settings, including for virtual consultations (i.e., e-consultations) to establish or confirm a diagnosis. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Bias in reasoning rather than knowledge gaps has been identified as the origin of most diagnostic errors. However, the role of knowledge in counteracting bias is unclear. Objective: To examine whether knowledge of discriminating features (findings that discriminate between look-alike diseases) predicts susceptibility to bias. Design: Three-phase randomized experiment. Phase 1 (bias-inducing): Participants were exposed to a set of clinical cases (either hepatitis-IBD or AMI-encephalopathy). Phase 2 (diagnosis): All participants diagnosed the same cases; 4 resembled hepatitis-IBD, 4 AMI-encephalopathy (but all with different diagnoses). Availability bias was expected in the 4 cases similar to those encountered in phase 1. Phase 3 (knowledge evaluation): For each disease, participants decided (max. 2 s) which of 24 findings was associated with the disease. Accuracy of decisions on discriminating features, taken as a measure of knowledge, was expected to predict susceptibility to bias. Participants: Internal medicine residents at Erasmus MC, Netherlands. Main Measures: The frequency with which higher-knowledge and lower-knowledge physicians gave biased diagnoses based on phase 1 exposure (range 0–4). Time to diagnose was also measured. Key Results: Sixty-two physicians participated. Higher-knowledge physicians yielded to availability bias less often than lower-knowledge physicians (0.35 vs 0.97; p = 0.001; difference, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.28–0.95]). Whereas lower-knowledge physicians tended to make more of these errors on subjected-to-bias than on not-subjected-to-bias cases (p = 0.06; difference, 0.35 [CI, − 0.02–0.73]), higher-knowledge physicians resisted the bias (p = 0.28). Both groups spent more time to diagnose subjected-to-bias than not-subjected-to-bias cases (p = 0.04), without differences between groups. Conclusions: Knowledge of features that discriminate between look-alike diseases reduced susceptibility to bias in a simulated setting. Reflecting further may be required to overcome bias, but succeeding depends on having the appropriate knowledge. Future research should examine whether the findings apply to real practice and to more experienced physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The process of diagnostic errors among Japanese residents has not been previously studied. This descriptive study was conducted in June 2019 on junior residents at a single‐center educational hospital in Japan. Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research taxonomy was used to measure the process of diagnostic error in the most memorable error cases. High frequency of diagnostic errors resulted from inaccurate/misinterpretation of history, failure/delay in eliciting physical examination findings, inaccurate/misinterpretation of physical examination, failure in weighting of physical examination, and failure/delay in considering the diagnosis. Residents made diagnostic errors mainly during history taking, physical examination, and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive bias (CB) is increasingly recognized as an important source of medical error and up to 75% of errors in internal medicine are thought to be cognitive in origin (O'Sullivan ED, Schofield SJ. Cognitive bias in clinical medicine. J R Coll Physicans Edinb. 2018;48;225-232). However, primary data regarding the true incidence of bias is lacking. A prospective evaluation of CB in the management of surgical cases with complications has not been reported. This study reports the incidence and distribution of various types of CBs, and evaluates their impact on management errors and standard of care (SOC). A prospectively collected series of 736 general surgical cases with complications from three university hospitals was analyzed. Surgical residents evaluated cases for 22 types of CBs (Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78:775-780). Supervising quality officers validated all quality assessments. Data were assessed for the incidence of CBs, error assessments (diagnostic, technical, judgment, system, communication, therapeutic, and professionalism), and SOC. CB was attributed in 32.7% (241/736) of all cases with complications. The most common CBs identified, both singly and in groups, were anchoring, confirmation, omission, commission, overconfidence, premature closure, hindsight, diagnosis momentum, outcome, and ascertainment bias. The attribution of CB was correlated to a statistically significant increase in the incidence of management errors by the surgical team and lower SOC assessments. CBs are identified in the management of cases with complications and are associated with an increase in management errors and a degradation in SOC. Insight into the types of CBs and their association with the type and severity of management errors may prove useful in improving quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examined the accuracy and pitfalls associated with frozen section diagnosis of primary ovarian tumors and ovarian metastases based on the 2014 World Health Organization classification (WHO) criteria and proposed improvements from a pathologist's perspective. Methods: We microscopically reviewed 871 cases of primary ovarian tumor (N = 802) and ovarian metastasis (N = 69) and compared the results of frozen sections with the final diagnosis. Malignant potential concordance (benign, borderline, or malignant) and specific discordant diagnosis rates were analyzed. Finally, we conducted a unique literature review of specific diagnostic errors in the frozen section diagnosis of primary ovarian tumors. Results: Of 802 primary ovarian tumors, 50 (6.2%) cases showed discordant diagnoses in which mucinous carcinoma (40.5%), low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC; 31.3%), and mucinous borderline tumor (18.4%) were frequently misinterpreted. Of 69 ovarian metastases, all 4 cases of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) were misdiagnosed as primary ovarian mucinous tumor. A literature review revealed that mucinous/serous borderline tumor or carcinoma accounted for approximately 70% of 217 reported discordant diagnoses. Conclusion: In the present study, the concordance rate of malignant potential of the tumor was comparable to that previously reported. Even in the 2014 WHO classification, primary ovarian mucinous borderline tumor/carcinoma and LGSC still comprised the majority of discordant cases. Grossing methods that reduce sampling error are required. LAMN was frequently misinterpreted as a benign or borderline ovarian mucinous tumor. To prevent this error, a differential algorithm integrating clinical information and gross findings should be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to collect and rate Green Flags, that is, symptoms or pieces of information indicating that a patient is more likely to suffer from a primary than from a secondary headache. Background: When assessing headaches, a central question to be answered is whether the pain is primary or secondary to another disorder. To maximize the likelihood of a correct diagnosis, relevant signs and symptoms must be sought, identified, and weighed against each other. Methods: The project was designed as a Delphi study. In the first round, an expert panel proposed green flags that were rated anonymously in two subsequent rounds. Proposals with an average rating of 4.0 and higher on a scale from 0 to 5 reached consensus. Results: Five Green Flags reached consensus: (i) "The current headache has already been present during childhood"; (ii) "The headache occurs in temporal relationship with the menstrual cycle"; (iii) "The patient has headache‐free days"; (iv) "Close family members have the same headache phenotype"; and (v) "Headache occurred or stopped more than one week ago." Conclusions: We propose five Green Flags for primary headache disorders. None being a pathognomonic sign, we recommend searching for both Green Flags and Red Flags. If both are present, a secondary headache should be suspected. Overall, the application of the Green Flag concept in clinical practice is likely to increase diagnostic accuracy and improve diagnostic resource allocation. Prospective studies in clinical populations should be conducted to validate these Green Flags. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Gynäkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Until the discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis (CF) in 1989, diagnostic developments were limited, and treatment focused on symptom alleviation. However, following the genetic breakthrough, some 2,000 mutations of the gene have been identified. More recently CF transmembrane conductance regulator modulator triple therapy (CFTRm) has been introduced in the form of triple therapy with ivacaftor, lumacaftor and tezacaftor (ETI), in the United States from 2019, Europe from 2020 and then Australia from 2021. The new treatment option has revolutionised both the quality of life and life expectancy of many persons diagnosed with CF. This editorial reviews major developments in the clinical care that can now be provided to patients, and reflects on the legal and ethical ramifications of the improved situation for many patients in the contexts of medical negligence, damages assessment, family law and criminal law. It also considers the difficult issues of access and equity caused by the limited availability of the triple therapy in low- and middle-income countries., Competing Interests: None.

Introduction: Panoramic radiography quality can be impaired by some errors such as positioning errors. Palatoglossal air space shadow error is one of the most common positioning errors and it is due to the tongue not sticking to the roof of the palate. Techniques used to deal with this error might help prevent unnecessary radiation to patients and save them time and money. The study aimed to investigate the effects of using celluloid matrix and edible tapes (fruit leather and chewing gum) on reducing the palatoglossal air space shadow error in panoramic imaging., Methods: In our study, 270 patients referred to the Department of Radiology were randomised into three groups: a control group, a celluloid matrix group and an edible tapes group. Before panoramic imaging, all patients were instructed to adhere their tongues to the roof of their mouths, with the distinction that for the celluloid matrix and edible tapes groups, patients were asked to place celluloid tapes, fruit leathers, or chewing gums on their tongues before doing so. The routine imaging process was then performed, and the results were compared across groups to evaluate the incidence of palatoglossal air space shadow error., Results: The number of error-free images in each fruit leather, chewing gum and celluloid tape group were significantly higher than the control group (all cases P < 0.05). The chances of error-free images in the fruit leather groups were the highest (9.57 times). The age (P = 0.136) and gender (P = 0.272) of patients had no significant effect on the results of interventions., Conclusion: The application of fruit leathers, chewing gums and celluloid tapes reduced the palatoglossal air space shadow error of panoramic imaging., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology.)

Objectives: Diagnostic errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in clinical practice. Implementable tools to quantify and target this problem are needed. To address this gap, we aimed to generalize the Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) framework by developing its computable phenotype and then demonstrated how that schema could be applied in multiple clinical contexts., Methods: We created an information model for the SPADE processes, then mapped data fields from electronic health records (EHR) and claims data in use to that model to create the SPADE information model (intention) and the SPADE computable phenotype (extension). Later we validated the computable phenotype and tested it in four case studies in three different health systems to demonstrate its utility., Results: We mapped and tested the SPADE computable phenotype in three different sites using four different case studies. We showed that data fields to compute an SPADE base measure are fully available in the EHR Data Warehouse for extraction and can operationalize the SPADE framework from provider and/or insurer perspective, and they could be implemented on numerous health systems for future work in monitor misdiagnosis-related harms., Conclusions: Data for the SPADE base measure is readily available in EHR and administrative claims. The method of data extraction is potentially universally applicable, and the data extracted is conveniently available within a network system. Further study is needed to validate the computable phenotype across different settings with different data infrastructures., (© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

BACKGROUND. A paucity of relevant guidelines may lead to pronounced variation among radiologists in issuing recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) for head and neck imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to explore associations of RAI for head and neck imaging examinations with examination, patient, and radiologist factors and to assess the role of individual radiologist-specific behavior in issuing such RAI. METHODS. This retrospective study included 39,200 patients (median age, 58 years; 21,855 women, 17,315 men, 30 with missing sex information) who underwent 39,200 head and neck CT or MRI examinations, interpreted by 61 radiologists, from June 1, 2021, through May 31, 2022. A natural language processing (NLP) tool with manual review of NLP results was used to identify RAI in report impressions. Interradiologist variation in RAI rates was assessed. A generalized mixed-effects model was used to assess associations between RAI and examination, patient, and radiologist factors. RESULTS. A total of 2943 (7.5%) reports contained RAI. Individual radiologist RAI rates ranged from 0.8% to 22.0% (median, 7.1%; IQR, 5.2-10.2%), representing a 27.5-fold difference between minimum and a maximum values and 1.8-fold difference between 25th and 75th percentiles. In multivariable analysis, RAI likelihood was higher for CTA than for CT examinations (OR, 1.32), for examinations that included a trainee in report generation (OR, 1.23), and for patients with self-identified race of Black or African American versus White (OR, 1.25); was lower for male than female patients (OR, 0.90); and was associated with increasing patient age (OR, 1.09 per decade) and inversely associated with radiologist years since training (OR, 0.90 per 5 years). The model accounted for 10.9% of the likelihood of RAI. Of explainable likelihood of RAI, 25.7% was attributable to examination, patient, and radiologist factors; 74.3% was attributable to radiologist-specific behavior. CONCLUSION. Interradiologist variation in RAI rates for head and neck imaging was substantial. RAI appear to be more substantially associated with individual radiologist-specific behavior than with measurable systemic factors. CLINICAL IMPACT. Quality improvement initiatives, incorporating best practices for incidental findings management, may help reduce radiologist preference-sensitive decision-making in issuing RAI for head and neck imaging and associated care variation.

Background: Nonspecific discharge diagnoses after acute hospital courses represent patients discharged without an established cause of their complaints. These patients should have a low risk of adverse outcomes as serious conditions should have been ruled out. We aimed to investigate the mortality and readmissions following nonspecific discharge diagnoses compared to disease-specific diagnoses and assessed different nonspecific subgroups., Methods: Register-based cohort study including hospital courses beginning in emergency departments across 3 regions of Denmark during March 2019-February 2020. We identified nonspecific diagnoses from the R- and Z03-chapter in the ICD-10 classification and excluded injuries, among others-remaining diagnoses were considered disease-specific. Outcomes were 30-day mortality and readmission, the groups were compared by Cox regression hazard ratios (HR), unadjusted and adjusted for socioeconomics, comorbidity, administrative information and laboratory results. We stratified into short (3-<12 h) or lengthier (12-168 h) hospital courses., Results: We included 192,185 hospital courses where nonspecific discharge diagnoses accounted for 50.7% of short and 25.9% of lengthier discharges. The cumulative risk of mortality for nonspecific vs. disease-specific discharge diagnoses was 0.6% (0.6-0.7%) vs. 0.8% (0.7-0.9%) after short and 1.6% (1.5-1.7%) vs. 2.6% (2.5-2.7%) after lengthier courses with adjusted HRs of 0.97 (0.83-1.13) and 0.94 (0.85-1.05), respectively. The cumulative risk of readmission for nonspecific vs. disease-specific discharge diagnoses was 7.3% (7.1-7.5%) vs. 8.4% (8.2-8.6%) after short and 11.1% (10.8-11.5%) vs. 13.7% (13.4-13.9%) after lengthier courses with adjusted HRs of 0.94 (0.90-0.98) and 0.95 (0.91-0.99), respectively. We identified 50 clinical subgroups of nonspecific diagnoses, of which Abdominal pain (n = 12,462; 17.1%) and Chest pain (n = 9,599; 13.1%) were the most frequent. The subgroups described differences in characteristics with mean age 41.9 to 80.8 years and mean length of stay 7.1 to 59.5 h, and outcomes with < 0.2-8.1% risk of 30-day mortality and 3.5-22.6% risk of 30-day readmission., Conclusions: In unadjusted analyses, nonspecific diagnoses had a lower risk of mortality and readmission than disease-specific diagnoses but had a similar risk after adjustments. We identified 509 clinical subgroups of nonspecific diagnoses with vastly different characteristics and prognosis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Cognitive bias may lead to diagnostic error in the patient encounter. There are hundreds of different cognitive biases, but certain biases are more likely to affect patient diagnosis and management. As during morbidity and mortality rounds, retrospective evaluation of a given case, with comparison to an optimal diagnosis, can pinpoint errors in judgment and decision-making. The study of cognitive bias also illuminates how we might improve the diagnostic process. In Part 1 of this series, cognitive bias is defined and placed within the background of dual process theory, emotion, heuristics, and the more neutral term judgment and decision-making bias., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Accurate diagnosis is an essential component of managing critically ill emergency department (ED) patients. Electronic diagnosis generators (EDGs) are software tools which assist clinicians in their diagnosis generation; however, they have not been evaluated for use for critical ED patients. We aimed to evaluate the use of an EDG for this population to determine its impact on diagnosis generation and diagnostic testing., Methods: We performed an observational study on usage of an EDG in the high-acuity area of a tertiary care ED. The EDG was used by residents evaluating each patient in the area. The resident used the EDG when the case was felt to have diagnostic uncertainty and completed a data collection tool. Data were summarized by frequencies. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess the association of added value of the EDG for diagnosis generation and diagnostic testing., Results: Over the 8-month study period, the EDG was utilized to evaluate 98 critical ED patients, of whom 60% were female, 7% were pediatric, and 46% were elderly. It was used most commonly for gastroenterological, infectious disease/immunologic, metabolic/renal, and neuropsychiatric presentations, and was least used for trauma presentations. Use of the EDG led to a diagnosis not initially considered in 47% of cases and led to additional diagnostic testing in 4% of cases., Conclusion: EDGs have some potential to improve diagnosis in critical EM patients by expanding the differential diagnosis and, to a lesser extent, altering diagnostic testing., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI).)

A 60-year-old man was admitted with a 1-month history of fever and weight loss. Multiple lymphadenopathies and haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis were noted from the beginning, suggesting lymphoma. However, lymph node biopsy was deferred because lymph node biopsy was regarded as being invasive and requires general anaesthesia, and because other possible differential diagnoses including gastrointestinal malignancies and TAFRO syndrome were being considered. Instead, investigations including gastrointestinal endoscopy and bone marrow biopsy were prioritized. The patient was eventually diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma based on lymph node biopsy but died during chemotherapy. Physicians should prioritize the tests that are most directly related to the diagnostic outcome, even if they are invasive.