Insights into diagnostic errors in endocrinology: a prospective, case-based, international study
-
Published:2023-12-08
Issue:1
Volume:23
Page:
-
ISSN:1472-6920
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Education
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Educ
Author:
Frey Jessica,Braun Leah T.,Handgriff Laura,Kendziora Benjamin,Fischer Martin R.,Reincke Martin,Zwaan Laura,Schmidmaier Ralf
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Diagnostic errors in internal medicine are common. While cognitive errors have previously been identified to be the most common contributor to errors, very little is known about errors in specific fields of internal medicine such as endocrinology. This prospective, multicenter study focused on better understanding the causes of diagnostic errors made by general practitioners and internal specialists in the area of endocrinology.
Methods
From August 2019 until January 2020, 24 physicians completed five endocrine cases on an online platform that simulated the diagnostic process. After each case, the participants had to state and explain why they chose their assumed diagnosis. The data gathering process as well as the participants’ explanations were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed to determine the causes of the errors. The diagnostic processes in correctly and incorrectly solved cases were compared.
Results
Seven different causes of diagnostic error were identified, the most frequent being misidentification (mistaking one diagnosis with a related one or with more frequent and similar diseases) in 23% of the cases. Other causes were faulty context generation (21%) and premature closure (17%). The diagnostic confidence did not differ between correctly and incorrectly solved cases (median 8 out of 10, p = 0.24). However, in incorrectly solved cases, physicians spent less time on the technical findings (such as lab results, imaging) (median 250 s versus 199 s, p < 0.049).
Conclusions
The causes for errors in endocrine case scenarios are similar to the causes in other fields of internal medicine. Spending more time on technical findings might prevent misdiagnoses in everyday clinical practice.
Funder
Universitätsklinik München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Education,General Medicine
Reference33 articles.
1. Graber ML, Carlson B. Diagnostic error: the hidden epidemic. Physician Exec. 2011;37(6):12–4.
2. Zwaan L, de Bruijne M, Wagner C, Thijs A, Smits M, van der Wal G, et al. Patient record review of the incidence, consequences, and causes of diagnostic adverse events. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1015–21.
3. Medicine, Io. National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. In: Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015:472.
4. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(13):1493–9.
5. Zwaan L, Singh H. The challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic error. Diagnosis (Berlin Germany). 2015;2(2):97–103.