Diagnosis最新文献

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.

Objectives: Diagnostic errors are a source of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, contextual factors influencing clinicians' diagnostic performance have not been studied in authentic ICU settings. We sought to determine the accuracy of ICU clinicians' diagnostic impressions and to characterize how various contextual factors, including self-reported stress levels and perceptions about the patient's prognosis and complexity, impact diagnostic accuracy. We also explored diagnostic calibration, i.e. the balance of accuracy and confidence, among ICU clinicians.

Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study in an academic medical ICU. Between June and August 2019, we interviewed ICU clinicians during routine care about their patients' diagnoses, their confidence, and other contextual factors. Subsequently, using adjudicated final diagnoses as the reference standard, two investigators independently rated clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and on each patient on a given day ("patient-day") using 5-point Likert scales. We conducted analyses using both restrictive and conservative definitions of clinicians' accuracy based on the two reviewers' ratings of accuracy.

Results: We reviewed clinicians' responses for 464 unique patient-days, which included 255 total patients. Attending physicians had the greatest diagnostic accuracy (77-90 %, rated as three or higher on 5-point Likert scale) followed by the team's primary fellow (73-88 %). Attending physician and fellows were also least affected by contextual factors. Diagnostic calibration was greatest among ICU fellows.

Conclusions: Additional studies are needed to better understand how contextual factors influence different clinicians' diagnostic reasoning in the ICU.

We have planned this analysis to provide current statistics on mortality directly caused by Influenza viruses in recent years in the US. We performed an electronic search in the online database CDC WONDER to obtain current statistics on direct mortality caused by Influenza viruses in the US. Mortality data are derived from information on all death certificates issued in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, excluding deaths of nonresidents. Our basic query criteria included Influenza-specific ICD-10 codes. Influenza caused an average of 7,670 deaths per year from 2018 to 2020 based on Influenza-specific ICD-10 codes, with a corresponding mean death rate of 2.3 × 100,000. The death rate increased in parallel with the age of the US resident population, from 0.2 × 100,000 in the 5-24 age group to 37.4 × 100,000 in US residents aged 85 years or older. No substantial differences were observed in males vs. females. The results of this analysis show that Influenza remains a significant clinical burden in the general population, with a cumulative mortality rate of approximately 2.3 × 100,000, but increasing more than tenfold (to over 37 × 100,000) in older persons.

Objectives: Diagnostic uncertainty is not reliably communicated to patients and caregivers. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to effective communication of diagnostic uncertainty, including development of potential tools and strategies for improvement, as perceived by healthcare professionals and caregivers.

Methods: We completed structured interviews with providers and caregivers of hospitalized children with uncertain diagnoses (UD). The interview guides addressed barriers to communication, key components for communication of uncertainty, and qualities of effective communication. The interviews concluded with respondents prioritizing potential interventions to improve communication of uncertainty. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and independently analyzed by two team members to identify common themes.

Results: Ten provider and five caregiver interviews were conducted. Common barriers to communication of uncertainty included time constraints, language barriers, and lack of clear definition of UD. Caregiver suggestions for improvement included sharing expectations of the diagnostic process and use of both written and visual communication tools. Interview respondents favored interventions of a sign summarizing the key components of diagnostic uncertainty for display in patient rooms and a structured diagnostic pause during daily rounds.

Conclusions: We identified several potential interventions that may enhance communication of diagnostic uncertainty and better engage patients and caregivers in the diagnostic process.

Differences in tumors related to location, tissue type, and histological subtype have been well documented for decades. Tumors are also molecularly very diverse. In this short review we describe the current classification schemes for tumor heterogeneity. We enlist the various drivers of tumor heterogeneity generation and comment on their clinical significance. New molecular techniques promise to assess tumor heterogeneity at affordable cost, so that these techniques can soon enter the clinic. While tumor heterogeneity currently represents a major unfavorable barrier in the field of oncology, it may also be a key in revolutionizing cancer diagnosis and treatment. Information regarding tumor heterogeneity has the potential to provide more thorough prognostic information, guide more efficacious combination treatment regimens, and lead to the development of novel therapeutic strategies and identification of new targets. For these gains to be realized, assessment of tumor heterogeneity needs to be incorporated into current diagnostic protocols but standardized and reproducible assessment methods are required. Fortunately, when these advances are realized, tumor heterogeneity has the potential to improve clinical outcomes.

Objectives: Diagnostic errors pose a significant risk to patient safety and have substantial medical and economic consequences. Despite their importance, diagnostic error education is currently lacking in standard pre-graduate curricula. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of diagnostic errors and the frequency of recognition among medical students in Japan.

Methods: A pilot survey was conducted immediately after the General Medicine In-Training Examination (GM-ITE), a comprehensive post-graduation test, administered to new residents right after graduation from medical school. The survey assessed whether they received education on diagnostic errors during their formal undergraduate medical education and whether they recognized diagnostic errors during their clinical training.

Results: Of the 564 examinees, 421 participated in the study. The majority of participants (63.9 %) reported receiving education on diagnostic errors, and 15.7 % recognized diagnostic errors during their clinical training. Significantly, those who received education on diagnostic errors had a higher rate of recognizing such errors compared to those who did not (19.7 vs. 8.6 %; p=0.0017).

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the recognition rate of diagnostic errors increases with improved literacy in diagnostic error education. This highlights the importance of incorporating diagnostic error education into medical curricula to develop effective strategies to prevent and manage diagnostic errors, and thereby enhance medical and patient safety. However, this study did not examine the specific educational content of the errors or the details of the recognition, necessitating further investigation in the future.