Search

Hospital quality-improvement initiatives that focus on diagnosis are challenging because clinicians who make the initial diagnosis are often not involved in deciding subsequent management and are unaware of the discharge diagnosis. A large Veterans Affairs study used natural language processing and diagnosis codes to determine the frequency of discordant diagnoses and to describe variables associated with discordance. Visual Abstract. Diagnostic Discordance, Uncertainty, and Treatment Ambiguity in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Hospital quality-improvement initiatives that focus on diagnosis are challenging because clinicians who make the initial diagnosis are often not involved in deciding subsequent management and are unaware of the discharge diagnosis. A large Veterans Affairs study used natural language processing and diagnosis codes to determine the frequency of discordant diagnoses and to describe variables associated with discordance. Background: Evidence-based practice in community-acquired pneumonia often assumes an accurate initial diagnosis. Objective: To examine the evolution of pneumonia diagnoses among patients hospitalized from the emergency department (ED). Design: Retrospective nationwide cohort. Setting: 118 U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers. Patients: Aged 18 years or older and hospitalized from the ED between 1 January 2015 and 31 January 2022. Measurements: Discordances between initial pneumonia diagnosis, discharge diagnosis, and radiographic diagnosis identified by natural language processing of clinician text, diagnostic coding, and antimicrobial treatment. Expressions of uncertainty in clinical notes, patient illness severity, treatments, and outcomes were compared. Results: Among 2   383   899 hospitalizations, 13.3% received an initial or discharge diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia: 9.1% received an initial diagnosis and 10.0% received a discharge diagnosis. Discordances between initial and discharge occurred in 57%. Among patients discharged with a pneumonia diagnosis and positive initial chest image, 33% lacked an initial diagnosis. Among patients diagnosed initially, 36% lacked a discharge diagnosis and 21% lacked positive initial chest imaging. Uncertainty was frequently expressed in clinical notes (58% in ED; 48% at discharge); 27% received diuretics, 36% received corticosteroids, and 10% received antibiotics, corticosteroids, and diuretics within 24 hours. Patients with discordant diagnoses had greater uncertainty and received more additional treatments, but only patients lacking an initial pneumonia diagnosis had higher 30-day mortality than concordant patients (14.4% [95% CI, 14.1% to 14.7%] vs. 10.6% [CI, 10.4% to 10.7%]). Patients with diagnostic discordance were more likely to present to high-complexity facilities with high ED patient load and inpatient census. Limitation: Retrospective analysis; did not examine causal relationships. Conclusion: More than half of all patients hospitalized and treated for pneumonia had discordant diagnoses from initial presentation to discharge. Treatments for other diagnoses and expressions of uncertainty were common. These findings highlight the need to recognize diagnostic uncertainty and treatment ambiguity in research and practice of pneumonia-related care. Primary Funding Source: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. [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]

Since the 2015 publication of the National Academy of Medicine's (NAM) Improving Diagnosis in Health Care (Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. In: Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2015.), literature in diagnostic safety has grown rapidly. This update was presented at the annual international meeting of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM). We focused our literature search on articles published between 2016 and 2018 using keywords in Pubmed and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)'s Patient Safety Network's running bibliography of diagnostic error literature (Diagnostic Errors Patient Safety Network: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Available from: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/search?topic=Diagnostic-Errors&f%5ftopicIDs=407). Three key topics emerged from our review of recent abstracts in diagnostic safety. First, definitions of diagnostic error and related concepts are evolving since the NAM's report. Second, medical educators are grappling with new approaches to teaching clinical reasoning and diagnosis. Finally, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to advance diagnostic excellence is coming to fruition. Here we present contemporary debates around these three topics in a pro/con format. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]