Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gunderson, Craig G; Bilan, Victor P; Holleck, Jurgen L; Nickerson, Phillip; Cherry, Benjamin M; Chui, Philip; Bastian, Lori A; Grimshaw, Alyssa A; Rodwin, Benjamin A.
Afiliação
  • Gunderson CG; Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA craig.gunderson@va.gov.
  • Bilan VP; VA Connecticut Health System West Haven Campus, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Holleck JL; Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Nickerson P; Internal Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Cherry BM; Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Chui P; Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Bastian LA; VA Connecticut Health System West Haven Campus, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Grimshaw AA; Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
  • Rodwin BA; VA Connecticut Health System West Haven Campus, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 29(12): 1008-1018, 2020 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32269070
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is commonly defined as a missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis and has been described as among the most important patient safety hazards. Diagnostic errors also account for the largest category of medical malpractice high severity claims and total payouts. Despite a large literature on the incidence of inpatient adverse events, no systematic review has attempted to estimate the prevalence and nature of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from database inception through 9 July 2019. We included all studies of hospitalised adult patients that used physician review of case series of admissions and reported the frequency of diagnostic adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Harmful diagnostic error rates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies including 80 026 patients and 760 harmful diagnostic errors from consecutive or randomly selected cohorts were pooled. The pooled rate was 0.7% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.1%). Of the 136 diagnostic errors that were described in detail, a wide range of diseases were missed, the most common being malignancy (n=15, 11%) and pulmonary embolism (n=13, 9.6%). In the USA, these estimates correspond to approximately 249 900 harmful diagnostic errors yearly. CONCLUSION: Based on physician review, at least 0.7% of adult admissions involve a harmful diagnostic error. A wide range of diseases are missed, including many common diseases. Fourteen diagnoses account for more than half of all diagnostic errors. The finding that a wide range of common diagnoses are missed implies that efforts to improve diagnosis must target the basic processes of diagnosis, including both cognitive and system-related factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018115186.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Erros de Diagnóstico Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prevalence_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Qual Saf Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Erros de Diagnóstico Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prevalence_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Qual Saf Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos