Prevalence of atypical presentations among outpatients and associations with diagnostic error
Author:
Harada Yukinori1, Otaka Yumi1, Katsukura Shinichi1, Shimizu Taro1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine , Dokkyo Medical University Hospital , Shimotsugagun , Tochigi , Japan
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
This study aimed to assess the prevalence of atypical presentations and their association with diagnostic errors in various diseases.
Methods
This retrospective observational study was conducted using cohort data between January 1 and December 31, 2019. Consecutive outpatients consulted by physicians from the Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine at a university hospital in Japan were included. Patients for whom the final diagnosis was not confirmed were excluded. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of atypical presentations, and the prevalence of diagnostic errors in groups with typical and atypical presentations. Diagnostic errors and atypical presentations were assessed using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument. We performed primary analyses using a criterion; the average score of less than five to item 12 of two independent reviewers was an atypical presentation (liberal criterion). We also performed additional analyses using another criterion; the average score of three or less to item 12 was an atypical presentation (conservative criterion).
Results
A total of 930 patients were included out of a total of 2022 eligible. The prevalence of atypical presentation was 21.7 and 6.7 % when using liberal and conservative criteria for atypical presentation, respectively. Diagnostic errors (2.8 %) were most commonly observed in the cases with slight to moderate atypical presentation. Atypical presentation was associated with diagnostic errors with the liberal criterion for atypical presentation; however, this diminished with the conservative criterion.
Conclusions
An atypical presentation was observed in up to 20 % of outpatients with a confirmed diagnosis, and slight to moderate atypical presentation may be the highest risk population for diagnostic errors.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference33 articles.
1. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care, Published Online, Balogh, EP, Miller, BT, Ball, JR, editors. December 29, 2015:21794. 2. Kostopoulou, O, Delaney, BC, Munro, CW. Diagnostic difficulty and error in primary care—a systematic review. Fam Pract 2008;25:400–13, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn071. 3. Fernholm, R, Pukk Härenstam, K, Wachtler, C, Nilsson, GH, Holzmann, MJ, Carlsson, AC. Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: aa retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden. Eur J Gen Pract 2019;25:128–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2019.1625886. 4. Singh, H, Schiff, GD, Graber, ML, Onakpoya, I, Thompson, MJ. The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:484–94, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005401. 5. Graber, ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(2 Suppl):ii21–7, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001615.
Cited by
7 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
|
|