The discrepancy between admission and discharge diagnoses: Underlying factors and potential clinical outcomes in a low socioeconomic country

Objective The discrepancy between admission and discharge diagnosis can lead to possible adverse patient outcomes. There are gaps in integrated studies, and less is understood about its characteristics and effects. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of diagnostic discrepancies at admission and discharge. Design and data sources This retrospective study reviewed the admitting and discharge diagnoses of adult patients admitted at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH), Internal Medicine Department between October 2018 and February 2019. The frequency and outcomes of discrepancies in patient diagnoses were noted among Emergency Department (ED) physician versus admitting physician, admitting physician versus discharge physician, and ED physician versus discharge physician for the full match, partial match, and mismatch diagnoses. The studied outcomes included interdepartmental transfer, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) transfer, in-hospital mortality, readmission within 30 days, and the length of stay. For simplicity, we only analyzed the factors for the discrepancy among ED physicians and discharge physicians. Results Out of 537 admissions, there were 25.3–27.2% admissions with full match diagnoses while 18.6–19.4% and 45.3–47.9% had mismatch and partial match diagnoses respectively. The discrepancy resulted in an increased number of interdepartmental transfers (5–5.8%), ICU transfers (5.6–8.7%), in-hospital mortality (8–11%), and readmissions within 30 days in ED (14.4%-16.7%). A statistically significant difference was observed for the ward’s length of stay with the most prolonged stay in partially matched diagnoses (6.3 ± 5.4 days). Among all the factors that were evaluated for the diagnostic discrepancy, older age, multi-morbidities, level of trainee clerking the patient, review by ED faculty, incomplete history, and delay in investigations at ED were associated with significant discrepant diagnoses. Conclusions Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant and significant healthcare problem. Fixed patient or physician characteristics do not readily predict diagnostic discrepancies. To reduce the diagnostic discrepancy, emphasis should be given to good history taking and thorough physical examination. Patients with older age and multi-morbidity should receive significant consideration.

Diagnostic discrepancies in second opinion pathology reviews in a community-based cancer center.

e18650 Background: Tracking diagnostic discrepancies is a common quality indicator in anatomic pathology. Many cases are re-reviewed as care is transferred from one facility to another. Most published data on these discrepancies is from the perspective of the tertiary receiving facility. Disparities in patient access to pathology expertise and technologies in small community hospitals can affect the accuracy of cancer diagnosis and the quality of care. Mary Lanning Healthcare (MLH) is a regional community hospital with a well-established referral pattern to several neighboring health systems. As part of a quality assurance process, we evaluated the diagnostic concordance rate of our cancer related pathology diagnoses with the referred institutions. Methods: Between 2017 and 2020, a cohort of cancer related cases was identified where the initial diagnosis was at MLH, then as part of coordinated care, a second pathologic interpretation was rendered at another instution. Data regarding specimen type, discrepancy in original diagnosis, nature and severity of discrepancy, disagreement in histologic grade, concordance or lack thereof with third party reviewers, and distribution among reviewing pathologists were collected. Results: A total of 521 cancer related cases (890 specimens) were sent to 16 facilities for second opinion. There were 46 (5%) discrepancies. Majority of them 45 (98%) were minor. Third party review of one major discrepancy came back in agreement with our original diagnosis. The most common discrepancy was interobserver variability in findings without strictly defined criteria. A change in histologic grade was the second most frequent deviation with prostate and breast being the most common sites. Upgrades and downgrades to the original diagnoses were nearly evenly split (19 to 21). A total of 33 pathologists were involved. While one reviewing pathologist generated 30% of all discrepancies, 3 other pathologists accounted for 67%. Conclusions: Accurate pathologic diagnoses significantly impact clinical outcomes. Our data which represents a rural community-based cancer program identified an overall discrepancy rate in the range of 0.1 to 1.1% for second opinion review. The vast majority of differences were minor in nature with no change in patient care and could be attributed to expected interobserver variability.[Table: see text]

Second Diagnostic Opinion by Experienced Dermatopathologists in the Setting of a Referral Regional Melanoma Unit Significantly Improves the Clinical Management of Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma

The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and melanocytic neoplasms in general is one of the most challenging fields in pathology, and the reported interobserver diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of melanocytic lesions is poor. Nevertheless, a correct histopathological diagnosis is crucial to ensure a good clinical management of the patients. The institution of multidisciplinary teams has recently modified the approach to the patients with cutaneous melanoma. Patients referred to a multidisciplinary melanoma unit after receiving a diagnosis of melanoma elsewhere are encouraged to have their histopathological diagnosis confirmed by a second opinion from the experienced pathologist of the team before any treatment is initiated. We performed a retrospective analysis on a series of 121 histopathological revisions required for melanocytic neoplasms in the context of a multidisciplinary team, in order to evaluate the effects of second diagnostic opinion (SDO) on the clinical management of the patients. We defined three types of diagnostic discrepancies between the first diagnosis and the second opinion, according to the greatness of their clinical impact. Overall, the incidence of diagnostic discrepancies of any type was quite high in our series (56%). Interestingly, the SDO determined relevant changes in the clinical management of the patients in 33 out of 121 (27.3%) cases. This study confirms that SDO by expert pathologists significantly affects the course of treatment of melanoma patients and helps improving the diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcome.

Proof of Concept: The Use of Whole-Slide Images (WSI) for Peer Review of Tissues on Routine Regulatory Toxicology Studies

This Proof of Concept (POC) study was to assess whether assessment of whole slide images (WSI) of the 2 target tissues for a contemporaneous peer review can elicit concordant results to the findings generated by the Study Pathologist from the glass slides. Well-focused WSI of liver and spleen from 4 groups of mice, that had previously been diagnosed to be the target tissues by an experienced veterinary toxicologic pathologist examining glass slides, were independently reviewed by 3 veterinary pathologists with varying experience in assessment of WSIs. Diagnostic discrepancies were then reviewed by an experienced adjudicating pathologist. Assessment of microscopic findings using WSI showed concordance with the glass slides, with only slight discrepancy in severity grades noted. None of the lesions recorded by the Study pathologist were “missed” and no lesions were added by the pathologists evaluating WSIs, thus demonstrating equivalence of the WSI to glass slides for this study.

Diagnostic Accuracy & Pathology Revised Reports: Evidence-Based Guideline Development

Introduction/Objective Diagnostic errors in pathology may have adverse impact on patient outcomes and are often rectified through revised reports (RR). Improving patient outcomes with accurate RR is a tangible yet challenging benefit to assuring continuous quality improvement (CQI). Assessment and elevation of RR optimization requires counterbalance of workflow complexity in the diagnostic reporting domain. Implications inform best-practice guidelines for pathology RR and exemplify improved patient outcomes by driving down negative impacts from diagnostic errors. Methods A “Survey for RR in Pathology: Reality & Best Practices” was sent via email to relevant stakeholders. The 8-item survey was designed by the National Pathology Quality Registry team & ASCP’s Institute for Science, Technology & Policy. The model included quantitative and qualitative feedback to probe current experiences with RR. The survey was open April 1-30, 2019, via Key Survey and used snowball sampling. Results Key results illuminate necessity for RR standardization. Survey findings represent 172 respondents. Ninety- two percent of respondents indicated report accuracy as a major indication for optimizing RR practices & positively impacting patient care. Pathology practices assure appropriate RR by notifying a care provider when a change in diagnosis necessitates RR (89%) & 86% of respondents indicate delineation of RR types (e.g. addenda, amendment). Still 54% of respondents see inappropriate RR use with lack of notification to care providers and 48% indicate no delineation of RR types. This balance-counterbalance highlights deviations from optimized RR and a need for guidelines. Effects on patient care or impact to a patient’s treatment plan was indicated by 43% who affirmed stratification of diagnostic discrepancies as major vs. minor. Solely focusing on changes in diagnosis (benign vs. malignant) was heralded by 19% of respondents as a reason to categorize diagnostic discrepancies. Forty-two percent of respondents indicate data-driven CQI in the RR domain. Conclusion Identified RR practice gaps decrease diagnostic accuracy, confirming the need for optimal RR guidelines. RR guidelines should focus on standardized nomenclature; active dialogue between laboratory team & clinical care partners; streamlined workflows to assure accuracy; & valuing transparency to derive improved patient outcomes based on high-quality diagnostic pathology RR.