Defining Diagnostic Error: A Scoping Review to Assess the Impact of the National Academies' Report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care

Traber D Giardina, Haslyn Hunte, Mary A Hill, S Layla Heimlich, Hardeep Singh, Kelly M Smith, Traber D Giardina, Haslyn Hunte, Mary A Hill, S Layla Heimlich, Hardeep Singh, Kelly M Smith

Abstract

Background: Standards for accurate and timely diagnosis are ill-defined. In 2015, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee published a landmark report, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care , and proposed a new definition of diagnostic error, "the failure to ( a ) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem(s) or ( b ) communicate that explanation to the patient."

Objective: This study aimed to explore how researchers operationalize the NASEM's definition of diagnostic error with relevance to accuracy, timeliness, and/or communication in peer-reviewed published literature.

Methods: Using the Arskey and O'Malley's framework framework, we identified published literature from October 2015 to February 2021 using Medline and Google Scholar. We also conducted subject matter expert interviews with researchers.

Results: Of 34 studies identified, 16 were analyzed and abstracted to determine how diagnostic error was operationalized and measured. Studies were grouped by theme: epidemiology, patient focus, measurement/surveillance, and clinician focus. Nine studies indicated using the NASEM definition. Of those, 5 studies also operationalized with existing definitions proposed before the NASEM report. Four studies operationalized the components of the NASEM definition and did not cite existing definitions. Three studies operationalized error using existing definitions only. Subject matter experts indicated that the NASEM definition functions as foundation for researchers to conceptualize diagnostic error.

Conclusions: The NASEM report produced a common understanding of diagnostic error that includes accuracy, timeliness, and communication. In recent peer-reviewed literature, most researchers continue to use pre-NASEM report definitions to operationalize accuracy and timeliness. The report catalyzed the use of patient-centered concepts in the definition, resulting in emerging studies focused on examining errors related to communicating diagnosis to patients.

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow diagram.

References

    1. National Academy of Medicine . Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015. doi:10.17226/21794.
    1. Singh H, Meyer AND, Thomas EJ. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:727–731.
    1. Medford-Davis L Park E Shlamovitz G, et al. . Diagnostic errors related to acute abdominal pain in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2016;33:253–259.
    1. Singh H Giardina TD Meyer AND, et al. . Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:418–425.
    1. Singh H Thomas EJ Mani S, et al. . Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential? Arch Intern Med. 2010;169:1578–1586.
    1. Singh H Thomas EJ Sittig DF, et al. . Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? Am J Med. 2010;123:238–244.
    1. Graber M. Diagnostic Error in Medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493–1499.
    1. Zwaan L, Singh H. The challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic error. Diagnosis (Berl). 2015;2:97–103.
    1. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493.
    1. Newman-Toker DE. A unified conceptual model for diagnostic errors: underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and misdiagnosis. Diagnosis (Berl). 2014;1:43–48.
    1. Singh H. Editorial: helping health care organizations to define diagnostic errors as missed opportunities in diagnosis. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40:99–101.
    1. Schiff GD Kim S Abrams R, et al. . Diagnosing diagnosis errors: lessons from a multi-institutional collaborative project. In: Henriksen K Battles JB Marks ES, et al.., eds. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Vol 2: Concepts and Methodology. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005:255–278. Available at: . Accessed March 6, 2021.
    1. Schiff GD. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1881.
    1. Singh H, Bradford A, Goeschel C. Operational measurement of diagnostic safety: state of the science. Diagnosis (Berl). 2020;8:51–65. doi:10.1515/dx-2020-0045.
    1. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.
    1. Brien SE Lorenzetti DL Lewis S, et al. . Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implement Sci IS. 2010;5:2.
    1. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci IS. 2010;5:69.
    1. Daudt HML, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48.
    1. McDonald J McKinlay E Keeling S, et al. . How family carers engage with technical health procedures in the home: a grounded theory study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007761.
    1. Newman-Toker DE Schaffer AC Yu-Moe CW, et al. . Serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims: the “big three”—vascular events, infections, and cancers. Diagnosis (Berl). 2019;6:227–240.
    1. Watari T Tokuda Y Mitsuhashi S, et al. . Factors and impact of physicians’ diagnostic errors in malpractice claims in Japan. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0237145.
    1. Gupta A Snyder A Kachalia A, et al. . Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;27. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006774.
    1. Lee SH Stanton V Rothman RE, et al. . Misdiagnosis of cerebellar hemorrhage—features of ‘pseudo-gastroenteritis’ clinical presentations to the ED and primary care. Diagnosis (Berl). 2017;4:27–33.
    1. Rinke ML Singh H Heo M, et al. . Diagnostic errors in primary care pediatrics: project RedDE. Acad Pediatr. 2018;18:220–227.
    1. Dadlez NM Adelman J Bundy DG, et al. . Contributing factors for pediatric ambulatory diagnostic process errors: project RedDE. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2020;5:e299.
    1. Sacco AY Self QR Worswick EL, et al. . Patients’ perspectives of diagnostic error: a qualitative study. J Patient Saf. 2020;17:e1759–e1764. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000642.
    1. Aoki T, Watanuki S. Multimorbidity and patient-reported diagnostic errors in the primary care setting: multicentre cross-sectional study in Japan. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e039040.
    1. Bontempo AC, Mikesell L. Patient perceptions of misdiagnosis of endometriosis: results from an online national survey. Diagnosis (Berl). 2020;7:97–106. doi:10.1515/dx-2019-0020.
    1. Giardina TD Haskell H Menon S, et al. . Learning from patients’ experiences related to diagnostic errors is essential for progress in patient safety. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37:1821–1827.
    1. Giardina TD Korukonda S Shahid U, et al. . Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30:996–1001. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011593.
    1. Soleimani J Pinevich Y Barwise AK, et al. . Feasibility and reliability testing of manual electronic health record reviews as a tool for timely identification of diagnostic error in patients at risk. Appl Clin Inform. 2020;11:474–482.
    1. Jayaprakash N Chae J Sabov M, et al. . Improving diagnostic fidelity: an approach to standardizing the process in patients with emerging critical illness. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2019;3:327–334.
    1. Perry MF Melvin JE Kasick RT, et al. . The diagnostic error index: a quality improvement initiative to identify and measure diagnostic errors. J Pediatr. 2020;232:257–263. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.065.
    1. Donner-Banzhoff N Müller B Beyer M, et al. . Thresholds, rules and defensive strategies: how physicians learn from their prior diagnosis-related experiences. Diagn Berl Ger. 2020;7:115–121.
    1. Matulis JC Kok SN Dankbar EC, et al. . A survey of outpatient internal medicine clinician perceptions of diagnostic error. Diagn Berl Ger. 2020;7:107–114.
    1. Graber M. Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31:106–113.
    1. Olson APJ, Graber ML, Singh H. Tracking Progress in improving diagnosis: a framework for defining undesirable diagnostic events. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33:1187–1191.
    1. Matusitz J, Spear J. Effective doctor-patient communication: an updated examination. Soc Work Public Health. 2014;29:252–266.
    1. Davis Giardina T King BJ Ignaczak AP, et al. . Root cause analysis reports help identify common factors in delayed diagnosis and treatment of outpatients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:1368–1375.
    1. Georgiou A Li J Thomas J, et al. . The impact of health information technology on the management and follow-up of test results—a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26:678–688.
    1. Dahm MR Georgiou A Herkes R, et al. . Patient groups, clinicians and healthcare professionals agree—all test results need to be seen, understood and followed up. Diagnosis (Berl). 2018;5:215–222.
    1. Thomas J Dahm MR Li J, et al. . Variation in electronic test results management and its implications for patient safety: a multisite investigation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27:1214–1224.
    1. Miao M Dahm MR Li J, et al. . Managing uncertainty during the communication of diagnostic test information between patients and clinicians in Australian emergency care. Qual Health Res. 2020;30:1287–1300.
    1. Giardina TD Baldwin J Nystrom DT, et al. . Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:440–446.
    1. Nystrom DT Singh H Baldwin J, et al. . Methods for patient-centered interface design of test result display in online portals. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2018;6:15. doi:10.5334/egems.255.
    1. Murphy DR Thomas EJ Meyer AND, et al. . Development and validation of electronic health record–based triggers to detect delays in follow-up of abnormal lung imaging findings. Radiology. 2015;277:81–87.
    1. Murphy DR Meyer AND Vaghani V, et al. . Development and validation of trigger algorithms to identify delays in diagnostic evaluation of gastroenterological cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:90–98.
    1. Murphy DR Meyer AND Vaghani V, et al. . Electronic triggers to identify delays in follow-up of mammography: harnessing the power of big data in health care. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:287–295.
    1. Schiff GD, Leape LL. Commentary: how can we make diagnosis safer? Acad Med. 2012;87:135–138.
    1. Singh H Schiff GD Graber ML, et al. . The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:484–494.
    1. ECRI Institute . 2019 Top 10 Patient Safety Concerns: Executive Brief. Plymouth Meeting, PA; 2019.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera