Automated identification of diagnostic labelling errors in medicine
Author:
Hautz Wolf E.1ORCID, Kündig Moritz M.2, Tschanz Roger2, Birrenbach Tanja1, Schuster Alexander3, Bürkle Thomas2, Hautz Stefanie C.1, Sauter Thomas C.1, Krummrey Gert1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Emergency Medicine , Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland 2. Berner Fachhochschule , Biel , Switzerland 3. Jung-Stilling-Klinikum , Siegen , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Identification of diagnostic error is complex and mostly relies on expert ratings, a severely limited procedure. We developed a system that allows to automatically identify diagnostic labelling error from diagnoses coded according to the international classification of diseases (ICD), often available as routine health care data.
Methods
The system developed (index test) was validated against rater based classifications taken from three previous studies of diagnostic labeling error (reference standard). The system compares pairs of diagnoses through calculation of their distance within the ICD taxonomy. Calculation is based on four different algorithms. To assess the concordance between index test and reference standard, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and corresponding confidence intervals. Analysis were conducted overall and separately per algorithm and type of available dataset.
Results
Diagnoses of 1,127 cases were analyzed. Raters previously classified 24.58% of cases as diagnostic labelling errors (ranging from 12.3 to 87.2% in the three datasets). AUROC ranged between 0.821 and 0.837 overall, depending on the algorithm used to calculate the index test (95% CIs ranging from 0.8 to 0.86). Analyzed per type of dataset separately, the highest AUROC was 0.924 (95% CI 0.887–0.962).
Conclusions
The trigger system to automatically identify diagnostic labeling error from routine health care data performs excellent, and is unaffected by the reference standards’ limitations. It is however only applicable to cases with pairs of diagnoses, of which one must be more accurate or otherwise superior than the other, reflecting a prevalent definition of a diagnostic labeling error.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference43 articles.
1. Balogh, EP, Miller, BT, Ball, JR, editors. Improving diagnosis in health care [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2015. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21794 [Cited 28 Apr 2017]. 2. Leape, LL, Brennan, TA, Laird, N, Lawthers, AG, Localio, AR, Barnes, BA, et al.. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324:377–84. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199102073240605. 3. Thomas, EJ, Studdert, DM, Burstin, HR, Orav, EJ, Zeena, T, Williams, EJ, et al.. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003. 4. Hautz, WE, Kämmer, JE, Hautz, SC, Sauter, TC, Zwaan, L, Exadaktylos, AK, et al.. Diagnostic error increases mortality and length of hospital stay in patients presenting through the emergency room. Scand J Trauma Resuscitation Emerg Med 2019;27:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-019-0629-z. 5. Graber, M. Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31:106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31015-4.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|