Factors affecting our diagnostic accuracy

Harish Gupta, SunilKumar Verma
{"title":"Factors affecting our diagnostic accuracy","authors":"Harish Gupta, SunilKumar Verma","doi":"10.4103/cmrp.cmrp_110_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Diagnostics and treatment are interdependent – but diagnostics are:-under-recognised-under-resourced-under-funded Policymakers and funders must prioritise #diagnostics to reduce the diagnostics gap and prevent premature deaths.” –The Lancet, Oct 7, 2021[1] Dear Editor, Nabi et al. analyse the discrepancy between admission diagnosis in emergency and final diagnosis in ward and then make its correlation with the length of hospital stay and mortality in their original article published in September–October 2022 issue of the journal.[2] They make a bar chart of the rate of diagnostic discrepancy amongst various organ systems and discover that at their hospital, such incoherence is the maximum amongst group of certain infections. Moreover, when they compared various organ system diseases, they found that circulatory disorders were the group where such correlation – or the lack of it – was the highest. While describing salient features of their study results, the investigators underscore that the highest discrepancy was seen in myocarditis (62.5%) group of patients. Therefore, as this is the – or one of the – most important findings of the article, let us discuss it hereupon. Viral infections are one of the most common causes of myocarditis.[3] Moreover, such diseases evolve sometimes after admission to a healthcare facility. For example, when a patient experiences chest pain, he presents to a clinic with variable symptoms[4] and after repeated examinations,[5] he may be correctly diagnosed. Under these circumstances, if one physician examines a patient when he has had a different presentation (at emergency department) and later, his symptoms evolve to a different one (in wards), and there is diagnostic discrepancy, we think that it simply represents evolution of the pathological rather than a diagnostic discrepancy in emergency. The study results has a heading – Baseline and clinical characteristics. There the writers highlight that the average length of hospital stay (days) for concordant diagnosis was 5.16 and for discordant lot was 7.05. Here, we want to add that shorter stay of the concordance group may be due to presentation of the patients at a later stage when some (provisional) diagnosis was already made at a peripheral centre. Hence, early discharge of such patients may be there because as now, we have their previous reports available, and we can compare the latest one with the baseline one. At this stage, either presence or its absence may be somewhat an easy task. Moreover, it may not have a relationship with baseline accuracy of diagnostic workup of the assessing physician – one who made a different diagnosis in the emergency department. Although the physicians state under a heading – Materials and Methods – that patients received from other health-care centres after being treated as inpatients were excluded from the study, it is possible that those treated as outpatients were there under study here. Hence, if they have some medical record with them of such a visit, it may have a different effect for making a diagnosis than its absence. In the catchment area of our hospital, poisoning is a common mode of suicide and celphos is the poison which women commonly consume when they decide to end their life. When such patients present at the emergency department, myocarditis is a complication attached to the toxic substance. Here is a case report where a patient developed cardiotoxicity during the course of her admission.[6] Hence, what we may argue is that if markers of cardiac involvement were not there at presentation that may be because it was not there then. Therefore, discrepancy of the diagnosis at certain stages may crop up which indicates known course and association of the pathogenic process. However, if we closely look at the study duration (over nearly 1½ years, from October 2018 to February 2020), it mostly belongs to before the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. Later on during the pandemic, COVID-19 was associated with a 2–3-fold higher risk of myocarditis and unexpectedly, lower rates of heart failure diagnosis: due to presentation of the patients with failure of both the organ systems and one interfering with accurate assessment of the other.[7] Moreover, overdependence on investigations and ignoring the history and physical examination can lead to discrepancy in diagnosis in emergency and medicine ward. Rapid and widespread availability and quick results of some cardiological investigations such as electrocardiographic, cardiac enzymes (CPK MB [Creatine Phosphokinase-MB] and Troponin T), echocardiography (sometimes bedside one), high-resolution computed tomography (CT) thorax, and CT/invasive coronary angiography may suppress our clinical acumen. Next to circulatory disorders come the respiratory disorders where diagnostic discrepancy occurs and amongst the diseases included in the category ARDS tops the list, as the authors mention in the data analysis outcomes. 47% is the frequency with which such discordance was observed. What we want to add is that the syndrome may not be present at admission and may develop only later on in few cases.[8] It is, for this reason, the discrepancy between admission and later assessment at wards may be because now the patient has had a different nature of illness at different points of time. We admit patients to hospital so that we may observe them closely for change in the course of their disease and respond appropriately as and when they develop newer symptoms and signs. It is for this reason a different diagnostic label which may not necessarily indicate something missed and we need to have a wider perspective to include several other possibilities as well. While providing feedback to the emergency team may yield positive results for mutual benefit, what also should be considered is that an illness may alter its course after hospitalisation and we need to follow our patients with utmost care. As a physician, we always need to examine a patient with eyes wide open and rapidly detecting emerging findings may make us to rethink. Our humility to re-examine ourselves is a virtue which we need to deploy more and listening to patients may yield novel ideas. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.","PeriodicalId":72736,"journal":{"name":"Current medicine research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current medicine research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/cmrp.cmrp_110_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Diagnostics and treatment are interdependent – but diagnostics are:-under-recognised-under-resourced-under-funded Policymakers and funders must prioritise #diagnostics to reduce the diagnostics gap and prevent premature deaths.” –The Lancet, Oct 7, 2021[1] Dear Editor, Nabi et al. analyse the discrepancy between admission diagnosis in emergency and final diagnosis in ward and then make its correlation with the length of hospital stay and mortality in their original article published in September–October 2022 issue of the journal.[2] They make a bar chart of the rate of diagnostic discrepancy amongst various organ systems and discover that at their hospital, such incoherence is the maximum amongst group of certain infections. Moreover, when they compared various organ system diseases, they found that circulatory disorders were the group where such correlation – or the lack of it – was the highest. While describing salient features of their study results, the investigators underscore that the highest discrepancy was seen in myocarditis (62.5%) group of patients. Therefore, as this is the – or one of the – most important findings of the article, let us discuss it hereupon. Viral infections are one of the most common causes of myocarditis.[3] Moreover, such diseases evolve sometimes after admission to a healthcare facility. For example, when a patient experiences chest pain, he presents to a clinic with variable symptoms[4] and after repeated examinations,[5] he may be correctly diagnosed. Under these circumstances, if one physician examines a patient when he has had a different presentation (at emergency department) and later, his symptoms evolve to a different one (in wards), and there is diagnostic discrepancy, we think that it simply represents evolution of the pathological rather than a diagnostic discrepancy in emergency. The study results has a heading – Baseline and clinical characteristics. There the writers highlight that the average length of hospital stay (days) for concordant diagnosis was 5.16 and for discordant lot was 7.05. Here, we want to add that shorter stay of the concordance group may be due to presentation of the patients at a later stage when some (provisional) diagnosis was already made at a peripheral centre. Hence, early discharge of such patients may be there because as now, we have their previous reports available, and we can compare the latest one with the baseline one. At this stage, either presence or its absence may be somewhat an easy task. Moreover, it may not have a relationship with baseline accuracy of diagnostic workup of the assessing physician – one who made a different diagnosis in the emergency department. Although the physicians state under a heading – Materials and Methods – that patients received from other health-care centres after being treated as inpatients were excluded from the study, it is possible that those treated as outpatients were there under study here. Hence, if they have some medical record with them of such a visit, it may have a different effect for making a diagnosis than its absence. In the catchment area of our hospital, poisoning is a common mode of suicide and celphos is the poison which women commonly consume when they decide to end their life. When such patients present at the emergency department, myocarditis is a complication attached to the toxic substance. Here is a case report where a patient developed cardiotoxicity during the course of her admission.[6] Hence, what we may argue is that if markers of cardiac involvement were not there at presentation that may be because it was not there then. Therefore, discrepancy of the diagnosis at certain stages may crop up which indicates known course and association of the pathogenic process. However, if we closely look at the study duration (over nearly 1½ years, from October 2018 to February 2020), it mostly belongs to before the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. Later on during the pandemic, COVID-19 was associated with a 2–3-fold higher risk of myocarditis and unexpectedly, lower rates of heart failure diagnosis: due to presentation of the patients with failure of both the organ systems and one interfering with accurate assessment of the other.[7] Moreover, overdependence on investigations and ignoring the history and physical examination can lead to discrepancy in diagnosis in emergency and medicine ward. Rapid and widespread availability and quick results of some cardiological investigations such as electrocardiographic, cardiac enzymes (CPK MB [Creatine Phosphokinase-MB] and Troponin T), echocardiography (sometimes bedside one), high-resolution computed tomography (CT) thorax, and CT/invasive coronary angiography may suppress our clinical acumen. Next to circulatory disorders come the respiratory disorders where diagnostic discrepancy occurs and amongst the diseases included in the category ARDS tops the list, as the authors mention in the data analysis outcomes. 47% is the frequency with which such discordance was observed. What we want to add is that the syndrome may not be present at admission and may develop only later on in few cases.[8] It is, for this reason, the discrepancy between admission and later assessment at wards may be because now the patient has had a different nature of illness at different points of time. We admit patients to hospital so that we may observe them closely for change in the course of their disease and respond appropriately as and when they develop newer symptoms and signs. It is for this reason a different diagnostic label which may not necessarily indicate something missed and we need to have a wider perspective to include several other possibilities as well. While providing feedback to the emergency team may yield positive results for mutual benefit, what also should be considered is that an illness may alter its course after hospitalisation and we need to follow our patients with utmost care. As a physician, we always need to examine a patient with eyes wide open and rapidly detecting emerging findings may make us to rethink. Our humility to re-examine ourselves is a virtue which we need to deploy more and listening to patients may yield novel ideas. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
影响我们诊断准确性的因素
“诊断和治疗是相互依存的,但诊断得不到充分认识,资源不足,资金不足,政策制定者和资助者必须优先考虑诊断,以缩小诊断差距,防止过早死亡。——《柳叶刀》,2021年10月7日[1]尊敬的编辑,Nabi等人在《柳叶刀》杂志2022年9 - 10月刊上发表了他们的原创文章,分析了急诊入院诊断与病房最终诊断的差异,并将其与住院时间和死亡率进行了相关性分析[2]。他们制作了一个不同器官系统诊断差异率的柱状图,发现在他们医院,这种不一致性在某些感染组中是最大的。此外,当他们比较各种器官系统疾病时,他们发现循环系统疾病是这种相关性(或缺乏这种相关性)最高的一组。在描述其研究结果的显著特征时,研究人员强调在心肌炎组(62.5%)患者中差异最大。因此,由于这是本文最重要的发现之一,让我们就此进行讨论。病毒感染是心肌炎最常见的原因之一。[3]此外,这些疾病有时在进入医疗机构后发展。例如,当患者出现胸痛时,他以不同的症状来到诊所[4],经过反复检查[5],他可能被正确诊断。在这种情况下,如果一个医生检查一个病人时,他有不同的表现(在急诊科),后来,他的症状发展到不同的一个(病房),并有诊断差异,我们认为这只是代表病理的演变,而不是诊断的差异在紧急情况下。研究结果有一个标题-基线和临床特征。作者强调,一致诊断的平均住院时间(天)为5.16,不一致诊断的平均住院时间为7.05。在这里,我们想补充的是,一致性组的住院时间较短可能是由于患者在较晚的阶段出现,而在外围中心已经做出了一些(临时)诊断。因此,这些患者可能会提前出院,因为到目前为止,我们有他们以前的报告,我们可以将最新的报告与基线报告进行比较。在这个阶段,存在或不存在在某种程度上可能是一件容易的事情。此外,它可能与评估医生的诊断工作的基线准确性没有关系-一个在急诊科做出不同诊断的医生。尽管医生在“材料和方法”标题下声明,在作为住院病人接受治疗后从其他保健中心接收的病人被排除在研究之外,但作为门诊病人接受治疗的病人有可能是在那里接受研究的。因此,如果他们有这样的访问的一些医疗记录,它可能有不同的效果,以作出诊断比没有。在我院辖区,中毒是一种常见的自杀方式,而celphos是妇女在决定结束生命时常用的毒药。当这些病人出现在急诊科时,心肌炎是一种与有毒物质有关的并发症。这里有一个病例报告,病人在入院期间出现了心脏毒性。[6]因此,我们可能会争辩说,如果心脏受累的标志在发病时没有出现,那可能是因为当时没有。因此,在某些阶段的诊断差异可能会出现,这表明已知的病程和致病过程的关联。然而,如果我们仔细观察研究时间(从2018年10月到2020年2月,近1年半),它主要属于COVID-19大流行传播之前。在大流行期间,COVID-19与心肌炎的风险增加2 - 3倍有关,出乎意料的是,心力衰竭诊断率较低:由于患者出现两个器官系统衰竭,一个干扰了对另一个的准确评估。[7]此外,过度依赖调查,忽视病史和体格检查,会导致急诊科和内科病房的诊断不一致。一些心脏病学检查如心电图、心肌酶(CPK MB[肌酸磷酸激酶]和肌钙蛋白T)、超声心动图(有时是床边超声心动图)、胸部高分辨率计算机断层扫描(CT)和CT/侵入性冠状动脉造影等快速、广泛的可用性和快速的结果可能会抑制我们的临床敏锐度。正如作者在数据分析结果中提到的那样,仅次于循环系统疾病的是呼吸系统疾病,其中诊断差异较大,在ARDS类别中名列前茅。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Computerised tomography brain findings in male patients with alcohol dependence syndrome: A hospital based cross sectional study Emotional intelligence and personality among undergraduate students in a rural district of South India Overview of the artificial intelligence roadmap: Future applications in brain research Rare cause of red eyes: Cogan's syndrome An intriguing case of episodic hypersomnolence- Kleine–Levin syndrome, a diagnosis often missed
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1