Checklists to prevent diagnostic errors: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Diagnosis ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Ely ◽  
Mark A. Graber
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Mean Error ◽  
Premature Closure

AbstractMany diagnostic errors are caused by premature closure of the diagnostic process. To help prevent premature closure, we developed checklists that prompt physicians to consider all reasonable diagnoses for symptoms that commonly present in primary care.We enrolled 14 primary care physicians and 100 patients in a randomized clinical trial. The study took place in an emergency department (5 physicians) and a same-day access clinic (9 physicians). The physicians were randomized to usual care vs. diagnostic checklist. After completing the history and physical exam, checklist physicians read aloud a differential diagnosis checklist for the chief complaint. The primary outcome was diagnostic error, which was defined as a discrepancy between the diagnosis documented at the acute visit and the diagnosis based on a 1-month follow-up phone call and record review.There were 17 diagnostic errors. The mean error rate among the seven checklist physicians was not significantly different from the rate among the seven usual-care physicians (11.2% vs. 17.8%; p=0.46). In a post-hoc subgroup analysis, emergency physicians in the checklist group had a lower mean error rate than emergency physicians in the usual-care group (19.1% vs. 45.0%; p=0.04). Checklist physicians considered more diagnoses than usual-care physicians during the patient encounters (6.5 diagnoses [SD 4.2] vs. 3.4 diagnoses [SD 2.0], p<0.001).Checklists did not improve the diagnostic error rate in this study. However further development and testing of checklists in larger studies may be warranted.

scholarly journals Use of Heuristics during the clinical decision process in from family physicians in real conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Fernández Aguilar ◽  
José-Jesús Martín-Martín ◽  
Sergio Minué-Lorenzo ◽  
Alberto Fernández Ajuria
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Statistical Correlation ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Definition Of

Rationale, aims and objectives: The available evidence on the existence and consequences of the use of heuristics in the clinical decision process is very scarce. The purpose of this study is to measure the use of the Representativeness, Availability and Overconfidence heuristics in real conditions with Primary Care physicians in cases of dyspnea and to study the possible correlation with diagnostic error. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in 4 Primary Care centers in which 371 new cases or dyspnea were registered. The use of the three heuristics in the diagnostic process is measured through an operational definition of the same. Subsequently, the statistical correlation with the identified clinical errors is analyzed. Results: In 9.97% of the registered cases a diagnostic error was identified. In 49.59% of the cases, the physicians used the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. The availability heuristic was used by 82.38% of the doctors and finally, in more than 50% of the cases the doctors showed excess confidence. None of the heuristics showed a statistically significant correlation with diagnostic error. Conclusion: The three heuristics have been used as mental shortcuts by Primary Care physicians in the clinical decision process in cases of dyspnea, but their influence on the diagnostic error is not significant. New studies based on the proposed methodology will allow confirming both its importance and its association with diagnostic error.

Inaccurate or delayed diagnosis of hollow organ perforation by emergency physicians: using a qualitative approach to identify the causes

Diagnosis ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-121
Author(s):  
Chi-Chun Peng ◽  
Chaou-Shune Lin ◽  
Peter Woo ◽  
Henry Chih-Hung Tai ◽  
Cho-Chao Feng
Keyword(s):  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Hollow Organ

AbstractBackground:Mistakes or delays in the diagnosis of hollow organ perforation may be detrimental to prognosis. Nonetheless, emergency physicians (EPs) are prone to misdiagnosing this condition in specific scenarios. The factors leading to errors in their cognitive processes, however, have received little attention.Methods:Using a qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with EPs in the emergency departments (EDs) of three hospitals in Taiwan. We purposively selected participants to obtain a sample that can contribute essential information about the diagnostic process. Sampling continued until new information was no longer being gathered. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed by two investigators according to grounded theory.Results:Based on 23 cases from 20 EPs, four themes emerged from the analysis regarding the reasons for diagnostic errors: (1) atypical disease presentations (6/23; 26%), (2) cognitive process of the physicians (21/23; 91%), (3) systemic factors (14/23; 61%), and (4) composite factors (14/23; 61%).Conclusions:These findings provide valuable insight into the factors that contribute to diagnostic error in cases of abdominal hollow organ perforation. The results offer a basis on which to build a framework for teaching physicians how to avoid misdiagnosing hollow organ perforation in the future.

scholarly journals Use of Heuristics during the clinical decision process in Primary Care physicians in real conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Fernández Aguilar ◽  
José-Jesús Martín-Martín ◽  
Sergio Minué-Lorenzo ◽  
Miquel Farres
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Statistical Correlation ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Definition Of

Rationale, aims and objectives: The available evidence on the existence and consequences of the use of heuristics in the clinical decision process is very scarce. The purpose of this study is to measure the use of the Representativeness, Availability and Overconfidence heuristics in real conditions with Primary Care physicians in cases of dyspnea and to study the possible correlation with diagnostic error. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in 4 Primary Care centers in which 371 new cases or dyspnea were registered. The use of the three heuristics in the diagnostic process is measured through an operational definition of the same. Subsequently, the statistical correlation with the identified clinical errors is analyzed. Results: In 9.97% of the registered cases a diagnostic error was identified. In 49.59% of the cases, the physicians used the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. The availability heuristic was used by 82.38% of the doctors and finally, in more than 50% of the cases the doctors showed excess confidence. None of the heuristics showed a statistically significant correlation with diagnostic error. Conclusion: The three heuristics have been used as mental shortcuts by Primary Care physicians in the clinical decision process in cases of dyspnea, but their influence on the diagnostic error is not significant. New studies based on the proposed methodology will allow confirming both its importance and its association with diagnostic error.

scholarly journals Use of Heuristics during the clinical decision process from family physicians in real conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Fernández Aguilar ◽  
José-Jesús Martín-Martín ◽  
Sergio Minué-Lorenzo ◽  
Alberto Fernández Ajuria
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Statistical Correlation ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Definition Of

Rationale, aims and objectives: The available evidence on the existence and consequences of the use of heuristics in the clinical decision process is very scarce. The purpose of this study is to measure the use of the Representativeness, Availability and Overconfidence heuristics in real conditions with Primary Care physicians in cases of dyspnea and to study the possible correlation with diagnostic error. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in 4 Primary Care centers in which 371 new cases or dyspnea were registered. The use of the three heuristics in the diagnostic process is measured through an operational definition of the same. Subsequently, the statistical correlation with the identified clinical errors is analyzed. Results: In 9.97% of the registered cases a diagnostic error was identified. In 49.59% of the cases, the physicians used the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. The availability heuristic was used by 82.38% of the doctors and finally, in more than 50% of the cases the doctors showed excess confidence. None of the heuristics showed a statistically significant correlation with diagnostic error. Conclusion: The three heuristics have been used as mental shortcuts by Primary Care physicians in the clinical decision process in cases of dyspnea, but their influence on the diagnostic error is not significant. New studies based on the proposed methodology will allow confirming both its importance and its association with diagnostic error.

scholarly journals Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjqs-2020-011593
Author(s):  
Traber D Giardina ◽  
Saritha Korukonda ◽  
Umber Shahid ◽  
Viralkumar Vaghani ◽  
Divvy K Upadhyay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Record ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Healthcare Organisation ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
Patient Complaints ◽  
Malpractice Claims

BackgroundPatient complaints are associated with adverse events and malpractice claims but underused in patient safety improvement.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the use of patient complaint data to identify safety concerns related to diagnosis as an initial step to using this information to facilitate learning and improvement.MethodsWe reviewed patient complaints submitted to Geisinger, a large healthcare organisation in the USA, from August to December 2017 (cohort 1) and January to June 2018 (cohort 2). We selected complaints more likely to be associated with diagnostic concerns in Geisinger’s existing complaint taxonomy. Investigators reviewed all complaint summaries and identified cases as ‘concerning’ for diagnostic error using the National Academy of Medicine’s definition of diagnostic error. For all ‘concerning’ cases, a clinician-reviewer evaluated the associated investigation report and the patient’s medical record to identify any missed opportunities in making a correct or timely diagnosis. In cohort 2, we selected a 10% sample of ‘concerning’ cases to test this smaller pragmatic sample as a proof of concept for future organisational monitoring.ResultsIn cohort 1, we reviewed 1865 complaint summaries and identified 177 (9.5%) concerning reports. Review and analysis identified 39 diagnostic errors. Most were categorised as ‘Clinical Care issues’ (27, 69.2%), defined as concerns/questions related to the care that is provided by clinicians in any setting. In cohort 2, we reviewed 2423 patient complaint summaries and identified 310 (12.8%) concerning reports. The 10% sample (n=31 cases) contained five diagnostic errors. Qualitative analysis of cohort 1 cases identified concerns about return visits for persistent and/or worsening symptoms, interpersonal issues and diagnostic testing.ConclusionsAnalysis of patient complaint data and corresponding medical record review identifies patterns of failures in the diagnostic process reported by patients and families. Health systems could systematically analyse available data on patient complaints to monitor diagnostic safety concerns and identify opportunities for learning and improvement.

Lessons in clinical reasoning – pitfalls, myths, and pearls: the contribution of faulty data gathering and synthesis to diagnostic error

Diagnosis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin A. Schaller-Paule ◽  
Helmuth Steinmetz ◽  
Friederike S. Vollmer ◽  
Melissa Plesac ◽  
Felix Wicke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Myasthenic Crisis ◽  
Hospital Organization ◽  
Substantial Impact

Abstract Objectives Errors in clinical reasoning are a major factor for delayed or flawed diagnoses and put patient safety at risk. The diagnostic process is highly dependent on dynamic team factors, local hospital organization structure and culture, and cognitive factors. In everyday decision-making, physicians engage that challenge partly by relying on heuristics – subconscious mental short-cuts that are based on intuition and experience. Without structural corrective mechanisms, clinical judgement under time pressure creates space for harms resulting from systems and cognitive errors. Based on a case-example, we outline different pitfalls and provide strategies aimed at reducing diagnostic errors in health care. Case presentation A 67-year-old male patient was referred to the neurology department by his primary-care physician with the diagnosis of exacerbation of known myasthenia gravis. He reported shortness of breath and generalized weakness, but no other symptoms. Diagnosis of respiratory distress due to a myasthenic crisis was made and immunosuppressive therapy and pyridostigmine were given and plasmapheresis was performed without clinical improvement. Two weeks into the hospital stay, the patient’s dyspnea worsened. A CT scan revealed extensive segmental and subsegmental pulmonary emboli. Conclusions Faulty data gathering and flawed data synthesis are major drivers of diagnostic errors. While there is limited evidence for individual debiasing strategies, improving team factors and structural conditions can have substantial impact on the extent of diagnostic errors. Healthcare organizations should provide the structural supports to address errors and promote a constructive culture of patient safety.

scholarly journals The psychology of diagnostic error

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-98
Author(s):  
L. Zwaan
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Cognitive Errors ◽  
System 2 ◽  
System 1 ◽  
Analytic Reasoning

Diagnostic errors in medicine occur frequently and the consequences for the patient can be severe. Cognitive errors as well as system related errors contribute to the occurrence of diagnostic error, but it is generally accepted that cognitive errors are the main contributor. The diagnostic reasoning process in medicine, is an understudied area of research. One reason is because of the complexity of the diagnostic process and therefore the difficulty to measure diagnostic errors and the causes of diagnostic error. In this paper, I discuss some of the complexities of the diagnostic process. I describe the dual-process theory, which defines two reasoning modes, 1. a fast, automatic and unconscious reasoning mode called system 1, and a slow and analytic reasoning mode called system 2. Furthermore, the main cognitive causes of diagnostic error are described.

scholarly journals Mind the overlap: how system problems contribute to cognitive failure and diagnostic errors

Diagnosis ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashwin Gupta ◽  
Molly Harrod ◽  
Martha Quinn ◽  
Milisa Manojlovich ◽  
Karen E. Fowler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Cognitive Errors ◽  
Data Verification ◽  
Consulting Services ◽  
Cognitive Failure

Abstract Background Traditionally, research has examined systems- and cognitive-based sources of diagnostic error as individual entities. However, half of all errors have origins in both domains. Methods We conducted a focused ethnography of inpatient physicians at two academic institutions to understand how systems-based problems contribute to cognitive errors in diagnosis. Medicine teams were observed on rounds and during post-round work after which interviews were conducted. Field notes related to the diagnostic process and the work system were recorded, and findings were organized into themes. Using deductive content analysis, themes were categorized based on a published taxonomy to link systems-based contributions and cognitive errors such as faulty data gathering, information processing, data verification and errors associated with multiple domains. Results Observations, focus groups and interviews of 10 teams were conducted between January 2016 and April 2017. The following themes were identified: (1) challenges with interdisciplinary communication and communication within the electronic medical record (EMR) contributed to faulty data gathering; (2) organizational structures such as the operation of consulting services in silos promoted faulty information processing; (3) care handoffs led to faulty data verification and (4) interruptions, time constraints and a cluttered physical environment negatively influenced multiple cognitive domains. Conclusions Systems-based factors often facilitate and promote cognitive problems in diagnosis. Linking systems-based contributions to downstream cognitive impacts and intervening on both in tandem may help prevent diagnostic errors.

Interpretation of Skin Biopsies by General Pathologists: Diagnostic Discrepancy Rate Measured by Blinded Review

2003 ◽  
Vol 127 (11) ◽  
pp. 1489-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin J. Trotter ◽  
Andrea K. Bruecks
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Error Detection ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Surgical Pathology ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Discrepancy Rate ◽  
Skin Biopsies

Abstract Context.—Slide review has been advocated as a means to reduce diagnostic error in surgical pathology and is considered an important component of a total quality assurance program. Blinded review is an unbiased method of error detection, and this approach may be used to determine the diagnostic discrepancy rates in surgical pathology. Objective.—To determine the diagnostic discrepancy rate for skin biopsies reported by general pathologists. Design.—Five hundred eighty-nine biopsies from 500 consecutive cases submitted by primary care physicians and reported by general pathologists were examined by rapid-screen, blinded review by 2 dermatopathologists, and the original diagnosis was compared with the review interpretation. Results.—Agreement was observed in 551 (93.5%) of 589 biopsies. Blinded review of these skin biopsies by experienced dermatopathologists had a sensitivity of 100% (all lesions originally reported were detected during review). False-negative errors were the most common discrepancy, but false positives, threshold discrepancies, and differences in type or grade were also observed. Only 1.4% of biopsies had discrepancies that were of potential clinical importance. Conclusions.—Blinded review demonstrates that general pathologists reporting skin biopsies submitted by primary care physicians have a low diagnostic error rate. The method detects both false-negative and false-positive cases and identifies problematic areas that may be targeted in continuing education activities. Blinded review is a useful component of a dermatopathology quality improvement program.

scholarly journals Incidence of Diagnostic Error in Peripheral Vascular Disease Among Primary Care Physicians

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. e104
Author(s):  
Maged Metias ◽  
Jennifer Armstrong ◽  
Vikram Iyer ◽  
David Szalay ◽  
Theodore Rapanos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Peripheral Vascular Disease ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Peripheral Vascular
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document