Pneumonia diagnosis performance in the emergency department: a mixed-methods study about clinicians' experiences and exploration of individual differences and response to diagnostic performance feedback.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to (1) characterize the process of diagnosing pneumonia in an emergency department (ED) and (2) examine clinician reactions to a clinician-facing diagnostic discordance feedback tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a diagnostic feedback tool, using electronic health record data from ED clinicians' patients to establish concordance or discordance between ED diagnosis, radiology reports, and hospital discharge diagnosis for pneumonia. We conducted semistructured interviews with 11 ED clinicians about pneumonia diagnosis and reactions to the feedback tool. We administered surveys measuring individual differences in mindset beliefs, comfort with feedback, and feedback tool usability. We qualitatively analyzed interview transcripts and descriptively analyzed survey data. RESULTS: Thematic results revealed: (1) the diagnostic process for pneumonia in the ED is characterized by diagnostic uncertainty and may be secondary to goals to treat and dispose the patient; (2) clinician diagnostic self-evaluation is a fragmented, inconsistent process of case review and follow-up that a feedback tool could fill; (3) the feedback tool was described favorably, with task and normative feedback harnessing clinician values of high-quality patient care and personal excellence; and (4) strong reactions to diagnostic feedback varied from implicit trust to profound skepticism about the validity of the concordance metric. Survey results suggested a relationship between clinicians' individual differences in learning and failure beliefs, feedback experience, and usability ratings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Clinicians value feedback on pneumonia diagnoses. Our results highlight the importance of feedback about diagnostic performance and suggest directions for considering individual differences in feedback tool design and implementation.

Assessing Diagnostic Performance.

Assessing Diagnostic PerformanceDiagnosis is an action and a goal in medicine. This article is the introduction to a series of review articles on varying facets of diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis is an exercise in classification; that is, placing the patient's condition in the correct diagnostic category. However, consideration must also be given to the performance objective, whether it is technical performance of a test, acquiring diagnostic information with respect to clinical management for an individual or a population's health outcomes, or cost-effectiveness and equity of care.

An Operational Framework to Study Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments: Findings From A Consensus Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To create an operational definition and framework to study diagnostic error in the emergency department setting. METHODS: We convened a 17-member multidisciplinary panel with expertise in general and pediatric emergency medicine, nursing, patient safety, informatics, cognitive psychology, social sciences, human factors, and risk management and a patient/caregiver advocate. We used a modified nominal group technique to develop a shared understanding to operationally define diagnostic errors in emergency care and modify the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's conceptual process framework to this setting. RESULTS: The expert panel defined diagnostic errors as "a divergence from evidence-based processes that increases the risk of poor outcomes despite the availability of sufficient information to provide a timely and accurate explanation of the patient's health problem(s)." Diagnostic processes include tasks related to (a) acuity recognition, information and synthesis, evaluation coordination, and (b) communication with patients/caregivers and other diagnostic team members. The expert panel also modified the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's diagnostic process framework to incorporate influence of mode of arrival, triage level, and interventions during emergency care and underscored the importance of outcome feedback to emergency department providers to promote learning and improvement related to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed operational definition and modified diagnostic process framework can potentially inform the development of measurement tools and strategies to study the epidemiology and interventions to improve emergency care diagnosis.

Identifying trigger concepts to screen emergency department visits for diagnostic errors.

OBJECTIVES: The diagnostic process is a vital component of safe and effective emergency department (ED) care. There are no standardized methods for identifying or reliably monitoring diagnostic errors in the ED, impeding efforts to enhance diagnostic safety. We sought to identify trigger concepts to screen ED records for diagnostic errors and describe how they can be used as a measurement strategy to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm. METHODS: We conducted a literature review and surveyed ED directors to compile a list of potential electronic health record (EHR) trigger (e-triggers) and non-EHR based concepts. We convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to build consensus on trigger concepts to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm in the ED. RESULTS: Six e-trigger and five non-EHR based concepts were selected by the expert panel. E-trigger concepts included: unscheduled ED return to ED resulting in hospital admission, death following ED visit, care escalation, high-risk conditions based on symptom-disease dyads, return visits with new diagnostic/therapeutic interventions, and change of treating service after admission. Non-EHR based signals included: cases from mortality/morbidity conferences, risk management/safety office referrals, ED medical director case referrals, patient complaints, and radiology/laboratory misreads and callbacks. The panel suggested further refinements to aid future research in defining diagnostic error epidemiology in ED settings. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of e-trigger concepts and non-EHR based signals that could be developed further to screen ED visits for diagnostic safety events. With additional evaluation, trigger-based methods can be used as tools to monitor and improve ED diagnostic performance.

Controversies in diagnosis: contemporary debates in the diagnostic safety literature.

Since the 2015 publication of the National Academy of Medicine's (NAM) Improving Diagnosis in Health Care (Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. In: Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2015.), literature in diagnostic safety has grown rapidly. This update was presented at the annual international meeting of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM). We focused our literature search on articles published between 2016 and 2018 using keywords in Pubmed and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)'s Patient Safety Network's running bibliography of diagnostic error literature (Diagnostic Errors Patient Safety Network: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Available from: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/search?topic=Diagnostic-Errors&f_topicIDs=407). Three key topics emerged from our review of recent abstracts in diagnostic safety. First, definitions of diagnostic error and related concepts are evolving since the NAM's report. Second, medical educators are grappling with new approaches to teaching clinical reasoning and diagnosis. Finally, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to advance diagnostic excellence is coming to fruition. Here we present contemporary debates around these three topics in a pro/con format.

Competencies for improving diagnosis: an interprofessional framework for education and training in health care.

Background Given an unacceptably high incidence of diagnostic errors, we sought to identify the key competencies that should be considered for inclusion in health professions education programs to improve the quality and safety of diagnosis in clinical practice. Methods An interprofessional group reviewed existing competency expectations for multiple health professions, and conducted a search that explored quality, safety, and competency in diagnosis. An iterative series of group discussions and concept prioritization was used to derive a final set of competencies. Results Twelve competencies were identified: Six of these are individual competencies: The first four (#1-#4) focus on acquiring the key information needed for diagnosis and formulating an appropriate, prioritized differential diagnosis; individual competency #5 is taking advantage of second opinions, decision support, and checklists; and #6 is using reflection and critical thinking to improve diagnostic performance. Three competencies focus on teamwork: Involving the patient and family (#1) and all relevant health professionals (#2) in the diagnostic process; and (#3) ensuring safe transitions of care and handoffs, and "closing the loop" on test result communication. The final three competencies emphasize system-related aspects of care: (#1) Understanding how human-factor elements influence the diagnostic process; (#2) developing a supportive culture; and (#3) reporting and disclosing diagnostic errors that are recognized, and learning from both successful diagnosis and from diagnostic errors. Conclusions These newly defined competencies are relevant to all health professions education programs and should be incorporated into educational programs.

Can emergency physicians diagnose and correctly classify diastolic dysfunction using bedside echocardiography?

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if emergency physicians (EPs) can correctly perform a bedside diastology examination (DE) and correctly grade the level of diastolic function with minimal additional training in echocardiography beyond what is learned in residency. We hypothesize that EPs will be accurate at detecting and grading diastolic dysfunction (DD) when compared to a criterion standard interpretation by a cardiologist. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study on a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to an urban emergency department with a chief concern of dyspnea. All patients had a bedside echocardiogram, including a DE, performed by an EP-sonographer who had 3 hours of didactic and hands-on echocardiography training with a cardiologist. The DE was interpreted as normal, grade 1 to 3 if DD was present, or indeterminate, all based on predefined criteria. This interpretation was compared to that of a cardiologist who was blinded to the EPs' interpretations. RESULTS: We enrolled 62 patients; 52% had DD. Using the cardiology interpretation as the criterion standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the EP-performed DE to identify clinically significant diastolic function were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60-100) and 69% (95% CI, 50-83), respectively. Agreement between EPs and cardiology on grade of DD was assessed using κ and weighted κ: κ = 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29-0.59) and weighted κ = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.38-0.67). Overall, EPs rated 27% of DEs as indeterminate, compared with only 15% by cardiology. For DEs where both EPs and cardiology attempted an interpretation (indeterminates excluded) κ = 0.45 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.65) and weighted κ = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.36-0.72). CONCLUSION: After limited diastology-specific training, EPs are able to accurately identify clinically significant DD. However, correct grading of DD, when compared to a cardiologist, was only moderate, at best. Our results suggest that further training is necessary for EPs to achieve expertise in grading DD.

Disaster response team FAST skills training with a portable ultrasound simulator compared to traditional training: pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-hospital focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) has been effectively used to improve patient care in multiple mass casualty events throughout the world. Although requisite FAST knowledge may now be learned remotely by disaster response team members, traditional live instructor and model hands-on FAST skills training remains logistically challenging. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of a novel portable ultrasound (US) simulator with traditional FAST skills training for a deployed mixed provider disaster response team. METHODS: We randomized participants into one of three training groups stratified by provider role: Group A. Traditional Skills Training, Group B. US Simulator Skills Training, and Group C. Traditional Skills Training Plus US Simulator Skills Training. After skills training, we measured participants' FAST image acquisition and interpretation skills using a standardized direct observation tool (SDOT) with healthy models and review of FAST patient images. Pre- and post-course US and FAST knowledge were also assessed using a previously validated multiple-choice evaluation. We used the ANOVA procedure to determine the statistical significance of differences between the means of each group's skills scores. Paired sample t-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of pre- and post-course mean knowledge scores within groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 36 participants, 12 randomized to each training group. Randomization resulted in similar distribution of participants between training groups with respect to provider role, age, sex, and prior US training. For the FAST SDOT image acquisition and interpretation mean skills scores, there was no statistically significant difference between training groups. For US and FAST mean knowledge scores, there was a statistically significant improvement between pre- and post-course scores within each group, but again there was not a statistically significant difference between training groups. CONCLUSION: This pilot study of a deployed mixed-provider disaster response team suggests that a novel portable US simulator may provide equivalent skills training in comparison to traditional live instructor and model training. Further studies with a larger sample size and other measures of short- and long-term clinical performance are warranted.

Diagnosing acute heart failure in patients with undifferentiated dyspnea: a lung and cardiac ultrasound (LuCUS) protocol.

OBJECTIVES: The primary goal of this study was to determine accuracy for diagnosing acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in the undifferentiated dyspneic emergency department (ED) patient using a lung and cardiac ultrasound (LuCUS) protocol. Secondary objectives were to determine if US findings acutely change management and if findings are more accurate than clinical gestalt. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of adult patients presenting to the ED with undifferentiated dyspnea. The intervention consisted of a 12-view LuCUS protocol performed by experienced emergency physician sonographers. The primary objective was measured by comparing US findings to the final diagnosis independently determined by two physicians blinded to the LuCUS result. Acute treatment changes based on US findings were tracked in real time through a standardized data collection form. RESULTS: Data on 99 patients were analyzed; ADHF was the final diagnosis in 36%. The LuCUS protocol had sensitivity of 83% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67% to 93%), specificity of 83% (95% CI = 70% to 91%), positive likelihood ratio of 4.8 (95% CI = 2.7 to 8.3), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09 to 0.42). Forty-seven percent of patients had changes in acute management, and 42% had changes in acute treatment. Observed agreement for the LuCUS protocol was 93% between coinvestigators. Overall, accuracy improved by 20% (83% vs. 63%, 95% CI = 8% to 31% for the difference) over clinical gestalt alone. CONCLUSIONS: The LuCUS protocol may accurately identify ADHF and may improve acute clinical management in dyspneic ED patients. This protocol has improved diagnostic accuracy over clinical gestalt alone.

Tapping into the wisdom in the room: results from participant discussion at the 7th International Conference on Diagnostic Error in Medicine facilitated by a World Café technique.

The patient safety literature is full of exhortations to approach medical error from a system perspective and seek multidisciplinary solutions from groups including clinicians, patients themselves, as well as experts outside the traditional medical domain. The 7th annual International Conference on Diagnostic Error in Medicine sought to attract a multispecialty audience, and attempted to capture some of the conversations by engaging participants in a World Café, a technique used to stimulate discussion and preserve insight gained during the conference. We present the ideas generated in this session, discuss them in the context of psychological safety, and demonstrate the application of this novel technique.

Ultrasound-guided hematoma block for distal radial and ulnar fractures.

BACKGROUND: Hematoma blocks of the radius can provide excellent analgesia for simple distal radius fractures. However, the landmark-based approach can be difficult, and ultrasound guidance may improve success of the block and analgesia during reduction. There is limited literature describing the ultrasound-guided approach, and prior case descriptions have not involved comminuted fractures or concomitant ulnar styloid fractures. OBJECTIVES: This report reviews the technique of the ultrasound-guided hematoma block for distal radius fractures and introduces a second step, which can be used in the case of concomitant distal ulna fractures. DISCUSSION: The use of the ultrasound-guided hematoma block allows for direct visualization of needle advancement, as well as a simple approach to anesthetizing most distal radial and ulnar fractures. CONCLUSION: The ultrasound-guided hematoma block may be helpful in improving anesthesia of complicated distal radial and ulnar fractures, especially when landmark-based localization is difficult.

Educational agenda for diagnostic error reduction.

Diagnostic errors are a major patient safety concern. Although the majority of diagnostic errors are partially attributable to cognitive mistakes, the most effective means of improving clinician cognition in order to achieve gains in diagnostic reliability are unclear. We propose a tripartite educational agenda for improving diagnostic performance among students, residents and practising physicians. This agenda includes strengthening the metacognitive abilities of clinicians, fostering intuitive reasoning and increasing awareness of the role of systems in the diagnostic process. The evidence supporting initiatives in each of these realms is reviewed and a course of future implementation and study is proposed. The barriers to designing and implementing this agenda are substantial and include limited evidence supporting these initiatives and the challenges of changing the practice patterns of practising physicians. Implementation will need to be accompanied by rigorous evaluation.

Consensus-based recommendations for research priorities related to interventions to safeguard patient safety in the crowded emergency department.

This article describes the results of the Interventions to Safeguard Safety breakout session of the 2011 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference entitled "Interventions to Assure Quality in the Crowded Emergency Department." Using a multistep nominal group technique, experts in emergency department (ED) crowding, patient safety, and systems engineering defined knowledge gaps and priority research questions related to the maintenance of safety in the crowded ED. Consensus was reached for seven research priorities related to interventions to maintain safety in the setting of a crowded ED. Included among these are: 1) How do routine corrective processes and compensating mechanism change during crowding? 2) What metrics should be used to determine ED safety? 3) How can checklists ensure safer care and what factors contribute to their success or failure? 4) What constitutes safe staffing levels/ratios? 5) How can we align emergency medicine (EM)-specific patient safety issues with national patient safety issues? 6) How can we develop metrics and skills to recognize when an ED is getting close to catastrophic overload conditions? and 7) What can EM learn from experts and modeling from fields outside of medicine to develop innovative solutions? These priorities have the potential to inform future clinical and human factors research and extramural funding decisions related to this important topic.

Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors.

BACKGROUND: Missed or delayed diagnoses are a common but understudied area in patient safety research. To better understand the types, causes, and prevention of such errors, we surveyed clinicians to solicit perceived cases of missed and delayed diagnoses. METHODS: A 6-item written survey was administered at 20 grand rounds presentations across the United States and by mail at 2 collaborating institutions. Respondents were asked to report 3 cases of diagnostic errors and to describe their perceived causes, seriousness, and frequency. RESULTS: A total of 669 cases were reported by 310 clinicians from 22 institutions. After cases without diagnostic errors or lacking sufficient details were excluded, 583 remained. Of these, 162 errors (28%) were rated as major, 241 (41%) as moderate, and 180 (31%) as minor or insignificant. The most common missed or delayed diagnoses were pulmonary embolism (26 cases [4.5% of total]), drug reactions or overdose (26 cases [4.5%]), lung cancer (23 cases [3.9%]), colorectal cancer (19 cases [3.3%]), acute coronary syndrome (18 cases [3.1%]), breast cancer (18 cases [3.1%]), and stroke (15 cases [2.6%]). Errors occurred most frequently in the testing phase (failure to order, report, and follow-up laboratory results) (44%), followed by clinician assessment errors (failure to consider and overweighing competing diagnosis) (32%), history taking (10%), physical examination (10%), and referral or consultation errors and delays (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians readily recalled multiple cases of diagnostic errors and were willing to share their experiences. Using a new taxonomy tool and aggregating cases by diagnosis and error type revealed patterns of diagnostic failures that suggested areas for improvement. Systematic solicitation and analysis of such errors can identify potential preventive strategies.

Characteristics of patient care management problems identified in emergency department morbidity and mortality investigations during 15 years.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe cases referred for physician review because of concern about quality of patient care and identify factors that contributed to patient care management problems. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 636 cases investigated by an emergency department physician review committee at an urban public teaching hospital over a 15-year period. At referral, cases were initially investigated and analyzed, and specific patient care management problems were noted. Two independent physicians subsequently classified problems into 1 or more of 4 major categories according to the phase of work in which each occurred (diagnosis, treatment, disposition, and public health) and identified contributing factors that likely affected outcome (patient factors, triage, clinical tasks, teamwork, and system). Primary outcome measures were death and disability. Secondary outcome measures included specific life-threatening events and adverse events. Patient outcomes were compared with the expected outcome with ideal care and the likely outcome of no care. RESULTS: Physician reviewers identified multiple problems and contributing factors in the majority of cases (92%). The diagnostic process was the leading phase of work in which problems were observed (71%). Three leading contributing factors were identified: clinical tasks (99%), patient factors (61%), and teamwork (61%). Despite imperfections in care, half of all patients received some benefit from their medical care compared with the likely outcome with no care. CONCLUSION: These reviews suggest that physicians would be especially interested in strategies to improve the diagnostic process and clinical tasks, address patient factors, and develop more effective medical teams. Our investigation allowed us to demonstrate the practical application of a framework for case analysis. We discuss the limitations of retrospective cases analyses and recommend future directions in safety research.

Profiles in patient safety: authority gradients in medical error.

The term "authority gradient" was first defined in aviation when it was noted that pilots and copilots may not communicate effectively in stressful situations if there is a significant difference in their experience, perceived expertise, or authority. A number of unintentional aviation, aerospace, and industrial incidents have been attributed, in part, to authority gradients. The concept of authority gradient was introduced to medicine in the Institute of Medicine report To Err Is Human, yet little has been written or acknowledged in the medical literature regarding its role in medical error. The practice of medicine and medical training programs are highly organized, hierarchical structures that depend on supervision by authority figures. The concept that authority gradients might contribute to medical error is largely unrecognized. This article presents one case and a series of examples to detail how authority gradients can contribute to medical error, and describes methods used in other disciplines to avoid their potentially negative impact.