Diagnostic Errors in a PICU: Insights From the Morbidity and Mortality Conference.

OBJECTIVES: To describe diagnostic errors identified among patients discussed at a PICU morbidity and mortality conference in terms of Goldman classification, medical category, severity, preventability, contributing factors, and occurrence in the diagnostic process. DESIGN: Retrospective record review of morbidity and mortality conference agendas, patient charts, and autopsy reports. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Ninety-six patients discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference from November 2011 to December 2012. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 96 patients (93%) discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference had at least one identified safety event. A total of 377 safety events were identified. Twenty patients (21%) had identified misdiagnoses, comprising 5.3% of all safety events. Out of 20 total diagnostic errors identified, 35% were discovered at autopsy while 55% were reported primarily through the morbidity and mortality conference. Almost all diagnostic errors (95%) could have had an impact on patient survival or safety. Forty percent of errors did not cause actual patient harm, but 25% were severe enough to have potentially contributed to death (40% no harm vs 35% some harm vs 25% possibly contributed to death). Half of the diagnostic errors (50%) were rated as preventable. There were slightly more system-related factors (40%) solely contributing to diagnostic errors compared with cognitive factors (20%); however, 35% had both system and cognitive factors playing a role. Most errors involved vascular (35%) followed by neurologic (30%) events. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors in the PICU are not uncommon and potentially cause patient harm. Most appear to be preventable by targeting both cognitive- and system-related contributing factors. Prospective studies are needed to further determine how and why diagnostic errors occur in the PICU and what interventions would likely be effective for prevention.

Elevated prothrombin time on routine preoperative laboratory results in a healthy infant undergoing craniosynostosis repair: Diagnosis and perioperative management of congenital factor VII deficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Congenital factor VII deficiency is a rare bleeding disorder with high phenotypic variability. It is critical that children with congenital Factor VII deficiency be identified early when high-risk surgery is planned. Cranial vault surgery is common for children with craniosynostosis, and these surgeries are associated with significant morbidity mostly secondary to the risk of massive blood loss. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A two-month old infant who presented for elective craniosynostosis repair was noted to have an elevated prothrombin time (PT) with a normal activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) on preoperative labs. The infant had no clinical history or reported family history of bleeding disorders, therefore a multidisciplinary decision was made to repeat the labs under general anesthesia and await the results prior to incision. The results confirmed the abnormal PT and the case was canceled. Hematologic workup during admission revealed factor VII deficiency. The patient underwent an uneventful endoscopic strip craniectomy with perioperative administration of recombinant Factor VIIa. DISCUSSION: Important considerations for perioperative laboratory evaluation and management in children with factor VII deficiency are discussed. Anesthetic and surgical management of the child with factor VII deficiency necessitates meticulous planning to prevent life threatening bleeding during the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: A thorough history and physical examination with a high clinical suspicion are vital in preventing hemorrhage during surgeries in children with coagulopathies. Abnormal preoperative lab values should always be confirmed and addressed before proceeding with high-risk surgery. A multidisciplinary discussion is essential to optimize the risk-benefit ratio during the perioperative period.

The morbidity and mortality conference as an adverse event surveillance tool in a paediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if standardised chart review applied to records of patients discussed at a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) morbidity and mortality conference (MMC) yields additional or different information regarding safety event occurrence and characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective record review. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 96 patients discussed at the PICU MMC over 14 months (November 2011-December 2012). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety events and their characteristics (medical error category, severity and preventability). RESULTS: A total of 275 safety events were identified through the MMC and/or chart review. The MMC identified 131 (48%) events, 53 (19%) of which were identified through the MMC alone. After chart review was performed, an additional 144 (52%) events were identified. 78 (28%) events were identified through both. High severity adverse events potentially contributing to permanent harm or death were more likely to be identified through both the MMC and chart review (47%) compared with either alone. The MMC alone identified more near-misses (21%) and preventable events (96%) compared with chart review alone or both MMC and chart review. Although chart review alone helped to identify many healthcare-associated infections, medication errors and sedation/pain control issues not elicited through the MMC, the MMC alone identified more communication errors and workflow problems. The MMC alone also identified 40% of all diagnostic errors, which would not have been discovered otherwise despite chart review by itself identifying 50% of such misdiagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised chart review applied to records of patients discussed at a PICU MMC identified significantly more safety events not initially discovered through the MMC. However, the MMC was superior to chart review in identifying broader problems such as communication errors, workflow issues and certain diagnostic errors not captured by chart review, which can potentially affect many aspects of care.