Error codes at autopsy to study potential biases in diagnostic error.

IF 2.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnosis Pub Date : 2023-10-05 eCollection Date: 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2023-0010
Bruce I Goldman, Rajnish Bharadwaj, Michelle Fuller, Tanzy Love, Leon Metlay, Caroline Dignan
{"title":"Error codes at autopsy to study potential biases in diagnostic error.","authors":"Bruce I Goldman, Rajnish Bharadwaj, Michelle Fuller, Tanzy Love, Leon Metlay, Caroline Dignan","doi":"10.1515/dx-2023-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Current autopsy practice guidelines do not provide a mechanism to identify potential causes of diagnostic error (DE). We used our autopsy data registry to ask if gender or race were related to the frequency of diagnostic error found at autopsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our autopsy reports include International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9 or ICD 10 diagnostic codes for major diagnoses as well as codes that identify types of error. From 2012 to mid-2015 only 2 codes were used: UNDOC (major undocumented diagnoses) and UNCON (major unconfirmed diagnoses). Major diagnoses contributed to death or would have been treated if known. Since mid-2015, codes included specific diagnoses, i.e. undiagnosed or unconfirmed myocardial infarction, infection, pulmonary thromboembolism, malignancy, or other diagnosis as well as cause of death. Adult autopsy cases from 2012 to 2019 were assessed for DE associated with reported sex or race (nonwhite or white). 528 cases were evaluated between 2012 and 2015 and 699 between 2015 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Major DEs were identified at autopsy in 65.9 % of cases from 2012 to 2015 and in 72.1 % from 2015 to 2019. From 2012 to 2015, female autopsy cases showed a greater frequency in 4 parameters of DE, i.e., in the total number of cases with any error (p=0.0001), in the number of cases with UNDOC errors (p=0.0038) or UNCON errors (p=0.0006), and in the relative proportions of total numbers of errors (p=0.0001). From 2015 to 2019 undocumented malignancy was greater among males (p=0.0065); no other sex-related error was identified. In the same period some DE parameters were greater among nonwhite than among white subjects, including unconfirmed cause of death (p=0.035), and proportion of total error diagnoses (p=0.0003), UNCON diagnoses (p=0.0093), and UNDOC diagnoses (p=0.035).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Coding for DE at autopsy can identify potential effects of biases on diagnostic error.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"375-382"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Current autopsy practice guidelines do not provide a mechanism to identify potential causes of diagnostic error (DE). We used our autopsy data registry to ask if gender or race were related to the frequency of diagnostic error found at autopsy.

Methods: Our autopsy reports include International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9 or ICD 10 diagnostic codes for major diagnoses as well as codes that identify types of error. From 2012 to mid-2015 only 2 codes were used: UNDOC (major undocumented diagnoses) and UNCON (major unconfirmed diagnoses). Major diagnoses contributed to death or would have been treated if known. Since mid-2015, codes included specific diagnoses, i.e. undiagnosed or unconfirmed myocardial infarction, infection, pulmonary thromboembolism, malignancy, or other diagnosis as well as cause of death. Adult autopsy cases from 2012 to 2019 were assessed for DE associated with reported sex or race (nonwhite or white). 528 cases were evaluated between 2012 and 2015 and 699 between 2015 and 2019.

Results: Major DEs were identified at autopsy in 65.9 % of cases from 2012 to 2015 and in 72.1 % from 2015 to 2019. From 2012 to 2015, female autopsy cases showed a greater frequency in 4 parameters of DE, i.e., in the total number of cases with any error (p=0.0001), in the number of cases with UNDOC errors (p=0.0038) or UNCON errors (p=0.0006), and in the relative proportions of total numbers of errors (p=0.0001). From 2015 to 2019 undocumented malignancy was greater among males (p=0.0065); no other sex-related error was identified. In the same period some DE parameters were greater among nonwhite than among white subjects, including unconfirmed cause of death (p=0.035), and proportion of total error diagnoses (p=0.0003), UNCON diagnoses (p=0.0093), and UNDOC diagnoses (p=0.035).

Conclusions: Coding for DE at autopsy can identify potential effects of biases on diagnostic error.

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
尸检中的错误代码,用于研究诊断错误中的潜在偏差。
目的:目前的尸检实践指南没有提供一种机制来确定诊断错误(DE)的潜在原因。我们使用尸检数据登记来询问性别或种族是否与尸检中发现的诊断错误频率有关。方法:我们的尸检报告包括主要诊断的ICD 9或ICD 10诊断代码以及识别错误类型的代码。从2012年到2015年年中,只使用了两个代码:UNDOC(重大未记录诊断)和UNCON(重大未确认诊断)。重大诊断导致了死亡,或者如果知道的话会得到治疗。自2015年年中以来,代码包括特定诊断,即未诊断或未确诊的心肌梗死、感染、肺血栓栓塞、恶性肿瘤或其他诊断以及死亡原因。2012年至2019年的成人尸检病例评估了与报告的性别或种族(非白人或白人)相关的DE。2012年至2015年间评估了528例,2015年至2019年间评估了699例。结果:65.9例尸检中确定了主要DE % 2012年至2015年和72.1 % 2015年至2019年。从2012年到2015年,女性尸检病例在DE的4个参数中显示出更高的频率,即有任何错误的病例总数(p=0.0001)、有UNDOC错误的病例数(p=0.0038)或UNCON错误的病例数量(p=0.0006)以及错误总数的相对比例(p=0.0001)。从2015年到2019年,男性中未记录的恶性肿瘤更大(p=0.0065);没有发现其他与性别有关的错误。在同一时期,非白人受试者的某些DE参数大于白人受试人,包括未经证实的死因(p=0.035)、总错误诊断的比例(p=0.0003)、UNCON诊断(p=0.0093)和UNDOC诊断(p=0.005)。结论:尸检时对DE进行编码可以识别偏差对诊断错误的潜在影响。
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
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
期刊最新文献
Time pressure in diagnosing written clinical cases: an experimental study on time constraints and perceived time pressure. CDC's Core Elements to promote diagnostic excellence. Trends of diagnostic adverse events in hospital deaths: longitudinal analyses of four retrospective record review studies. A decision support system to increase the compliance of diagnostic imaging examinations with imaging guidelines: focused on cerebrovascular diseases. Bayesian intelligence for medical diagnosis: a pilot study on patient disposition for emergency medicine chest pain.
×
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