Diagnostic error: incidence, impacts, causes and preventive strategies

Scott, Ian; Crock, Carmel

doi:10.5694/mja2.50771

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diagnostic errors of missed, wrong or delayed diagnoses occur in 8% to 15% of all hospital admissions in the United States and more than 75% of them are wholly or partially attributable to cognitive factors in clinician decision making. 13 Clinician cognitive errors are prevalent everywhere that clinicians are human. This case is reported not to shame or blame, but rather to provide lessons in patient care from autopsy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ascariasis, trichuriasis and fatal non-transfusion

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ascariasis, trichuriasis and fatal non-transfusion

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From a procedural standpoint, the impact of endoscopic evaluation on accurately and promptly detecting upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers is clear. However, the trajectory of evaluation prior to ordering the first diagnostic test can be influenced by cognitive biases, such as anchoring or premature closure [33]. Other analyses have further distinguished cognitive and system-related error among subcategories of diagnostic error [34,35].…”

Section: Diagnostic Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical malpractice and gastrointestinal endoscopy

Kantrowitz

2022

Current Opinion in Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of reviewMedical liability is a perennial issue that most physicians will face at some point in their careers. Gastroenterologists routinely perform endoscopic procedures to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of their patients. Advances in endoscopic techniques and technology have accelerated movement of the field into a more surgical realm. These developments warrant consideration of pitfalls that may expose gastroenterologists to liability. This review will explore trends in malpractice facing gastroenterologists and offer strategies to deliver high quality and safe patient care.Recent findingsDespite being a procedure-oriented subspeciality, only a minority of malpractice claims against gastroenterologists are related to procedures. Diagnostic error is among the most prevalent reason for lawsuits. The consequences of malpractice are costly due litigation and indemnity as well as the increase in defensive medical practice. Improving diagnostic quality, optimizing informed consent, and enhancing patient–physician communication are important elements of risk mitigation.SummaryUnderstanding the important role that diagnosis plays in medical liability allows physicians to better evaluate risk and apply deliberate decision-making in order to practice confidently.

show abstract

“…Generally, they are applied to support decision‐making in three areas: (1) diagnosis, (2) prognosis, or (3) treatment response (Herbert et al., 2011). They have been shown to have several benefits, including reducing the need for unnecessary imaging, improving the accuracy of clinical assessment, and enabling more timely initiation of treatment (Scott & Crock, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for categorising low back pain: A systematic review

Hill,

Banerjee,

Hill

et al. 2023

Musculoskeletal Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common complex condition, where specific diagnoses are hard to identify. Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are known to improve clinical decision‐making. A review of LBP diagnostic‐CPRs by Haskins et al. (2015) identified six diagnostic‐CPRs in derivation phases of development, with one tool ready for implementation. Recent progress on these tools is unknown. Therefore, this review aimed to investigate developments in LBP diagnostic‐CPRs and evaluate their readiness for implementation.MethodsA systematic review was performed on five databases (Medline, Amed, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) combined with hand‐searching and citation‐tracking to identify eligible studies. Study and tool quality were appraised for risk of bias (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2), methodological quality (checklist using accepted CPR methodological standards), and CPR tool appraisal (GRade and ASsess Predictive).ResultsOf 5021 studies screened, 11 diagnostic‐CPRs were identified. Of the six previously known, three have been externally validated but not yet undergone impact analysis. Five new tools have been identified since Haskin et al. (2015); all are still in derivation stages. The most validated diagnostic‐CPRs include the Lumbar‐Spinal‐Stenosis‐Self‐Administered‐Self‐Reported‐History‐Questionnaire and Diagnosis‐Support‐Tool‐to‐Identify‐Lumbar‐Spinal‐Stenosis, and the StEP‐tool which differentiates radicular from axial‐LBP.ConclusionsThis updated review of LBP diagnostic CPRs found five new tools, all in the early stages of development. Three previously known tools have now been externally validated but should be used with caution until impact evaluation studies are undertaken. Future funding should focus on externally validating and assessing the impact of existing CPRs on clinical decision‐making.

show abstract

Diagnostic error: incidence, impacts, causes and preventive strategies

Cited by 23 publications

References 50 publications

Ascariasis, trichuriasis and fatal non-transfusion

Ascariasis, trichuriasis and fatal non-transfusion

Medical malpractice and gastrointestinal endoscopy

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for categorising low back pain: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About