Diagnostic Discrepancies in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001252
Laurens A Schols, Myrthe E Maranus, Pleunie P M Rood, Laura Zwaan
{"title":"Diagnostic Discrepancies in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Laurens A Schols, Myrthe E Maranus, Pleunie P M Rood, Laura Zwaan","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Diagnostic errors contribute substantially to preventable medical errors. Especially, the emergency department (ED) is a high-risk environment. Previous research showed that in 15%-30% of the ED patients, there is a difference between the primary diagnosis assigned by the emergency physician and the discharge diagnosis. This study aimed to determine the number and types of diagnostic discrepancies and to explore factors predicting discrepancies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective record review was conducted in an academic medical center. The primary diagnosis assigned in the ED was compared with the discharge diagnosis after hospital admission. For each patient, we gathered additional information about the diagnostic process to identify possible predictors of diagnostic discrepancies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The electronic health records of 200 patients were reviewed. The primary diagnosis assigned in the ED was substantially different from the discharge diagnosis in 16.0%. These diagnostic discrepancies were associated with a higher number of additional diagnostics applied for (2.4 versus 2.0 diagnostics; P = 0.002) and longer stay in the ED (5.9 versus 4.7 hours; P = 0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A difference between the diagnosis assigned by the emergency physician and the discharge diagnosis was found in almost 1 in 6 patients. The increased number of additional diagnostics and the longer stay at the ED in the group of patients with a diagnostic discrepancy suggests that these cases reflect the more difficult cases. More research should be done on predictive factors of diagnostic discrepancies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001252","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Diagnostic errors contribute substantially to preventable medical errors. Especially, the emergency department (ED) is a high-risk environment. Previous research showed that in 15%-30% of the ED patients, there is a difference between the primary diagnosis assigned by the emergency physician and the discharge diagnosis. This study aimed to determine the number and types of diagnostic discrepancies and to explore factors predicting discrepancies.

Methods: A retrospective record review was conducted in an academic medical center. The primary diagnosis assigned in the ED was compared with the discharge diagnosis after hospital admission. For each patient, we gathered additional information about the diagnostic process to identify possible predictors of diagnostic discrepancies.

Results: The electronic health records of 200 patients were reviewed. The primary diagnosis assigned in the ED was substantially different from the discharge diagnosis in 16.0%. These diagnostic discrepancies were associated with a higher number of additional diagnostics applied for (2.4 versus 2.0 diagnostics; P = 0.002) and longer stay in the ED (5.9 versus 4.7 hours; P = 0.008).

Conclusions: A difference between the diagnosis assigned by the emergency physician and the discharge diagnosis was found in almost 1 in 6 patients. The increased number of additional diagnostics and the longer stay at the ED in the group of patients with a diagnostic discrepancy suggests that these cases reflect the more difficult cases. More research should be done on predictive factors of diagnostic discrepancies.

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
急诊科诊断差异:一项回顾性研究。
目的:诊断错误是造成可预防医疗事故的主要原因。尤其是急诊科(ED)是一个高风险环境。之前的研究表明,在 15%-30%的急诊科患者中,急诊医生指定的主要诊断与出院诊断存在差异。本研究旨在确定诊断差异的数量和类型,并探讨预测差异的因素:方法:在一家学术医疗中心进行了一项回顾性记录审查。方法:我们在一家学术医疗中心进行了一项回顾性记录审查,将急诊室的主要诊断与入院后的出院诊断进行了比较。我们还收集了每位患者诊断过程的其他信息,以确定诊断差异的可能预测因素:我们查阅了 200 名患者的电子病历。16.0%的患者在急诊室的主要诊断与出院诊断有很大差异。这些诊断差异与更多的额外诊断申请(2.4 对 2.0 个诊断;P = 0.002)和更长的急诊室停留时间(5.9 对 4.7 小时;P = 0.008)有关:结论:几乎每 6 名患者中就有 1 人的急诊医生诊断与出院诊断存在差异。在诊断不一致的患者组中,额外诊断的次数增加,在急诊室停留的时间延长,这表明这些病例反映的是更棘手的病例。应就诊断不一致的预测因素开展更多研究。
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
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
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