Identifying trigger concepts to screen emergency department visits for diagnostic errors

Abstract

ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSix 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.ConclusionsWe 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.

Performance evaluation of ChatGPT in detecting diagnostic errors and their contributing factors: an analysis of 545 case reports of diagnostic errors

“…22 25 Even with the current medical record systems, the use of trigger events or some calculated scores to detect a high-risk population for diagnostic errors (eg, a clinical visit followed several days later by an unplanned hospitalisation or subsequent visit to the emergency department, patients with discrepancies in diagnosis between admission and discharge) has been proposed to screen for possible cases of diagnostic errors effectively. [25][26][27][28] However, these triggers may miss some patients with diagnostic errors (low sensitivity). 25 Moreover, manual reviewing of all cases is time-consuming and impractical.…”

Monitoring Diagnostic Safety Risks in Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Machine Learning Study

“…All SQL queries can be modified to match other systems (eg, Cerner) by matching concepts and keywords. Table 1 provides an initial list of 6 EHR-based triggers proposed in IDEA-LL after reviewing the literature on current triggers, surveying medical directors, and using a Delphi consensus process [32].…”

Identification of delayed diagnosis of paediatric appendicitis in administrative data: a multicentre retrospective validation study

“…However, case review is labourious, expensive and difficult to scale. Automated approaches promise to screen and identify potential causes of error, but nevertheless require manual case review after screening 12 13. Case review depends on access to records and resources to perform the review, biasing samples towards hospitals willing to participate 14…”