The Big Three diagnostic errors through reflections of Japanese internists.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the Big Three diagnostic errors (malignant neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, and infectious diseases) through internists' self-reflection on their most memorable diagnostic errors. METHODS: This secondary analysis study, based on a web-based cross-sectional survey, recruited participants from January 21 to 31, 2019. The participants were asked to recall the most memorable diagnostic error cases in which they were primarily involved. We gathered data on internists' demographics, time to error recognition, and error location. Factors causing diagnostic errors included environmental conditions, information processing, and cognitive bias. Participants scored the significance of each contributing factor on a Likert scale (0, unimportant; 10, extremely important). RESULTS: The Big Three comprised 54.1 % (n=372) of the 687 cases reviewed. The median physician age was 51.5 years (interquartile range, 42-58 years); 65.6 % of physicians worked in hospital settings. Delayed diagnoses were the most common among malignancies (n=64, 46 %). Diagnostic errors related to malignancy were frequent in general outpatient settings on weekdays and in the mornings and were not identified for several months following the event. Environmental factors often contributed to cardiovascular disease-related errors, which were typically identified within days in emergency departments, during night shifts, and on holidays. Information gathering and interpretation significantly impacted infectious disease diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The Big Three accounted for the majority of cases recalled by Japanese internists. The most relevant contributing factors were different for each of the three categories. Addressing these errors may require a unique approach based on the disease associations.

A protocol-driven approach to reduce lengths of stay for pediatric blunt liver and spleen injury patients.

BACKGROUND: Our institution updated blunt liver and spleen injury (BLSI) protocols in 2019 in adherence to updated American Pediatric Surgery Association recommendations. This retrospective study compares resource utilization for pediatric BLSI patients treated under old and updated guidelines. METHODS: Blunt liver and spleen injury patients without severe non-abdomen injuries younger than 18 years treated with prior (April 2015 to June 2019) and updated (June 2019 to December 2022) guidelines were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Each patient received an adjusted Injury Severity Score (ISS) to control for non-BLSI injuries. Multivariate analysis examined protocol group differences while controlling for adjusted ISS and BLSI grades. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS (analyzed using Cox regression), and patient costs (linear regression). Secondary outcomes include readmission in 2 weeks and death rates (logistic regression). RESULTS: A total of 176 and 170 BLSI patients were treated with old and updated protocols, respectively. Patient demographics, average BLSI grade, and adjusted ISS were similar in both groups. Patients treated with old protocols indicate decreased hazard, showing significantly more days before ICU discharge (coefficient, -0.3868; p < 0.0009) and hospital discharge (coefficient, -0.5507; p < 0.0001). Patient costs (coefficient, 0.0921; p = 0.1874) trend toward being lower in the new protocol. Readmission rates were significantly higher in the new protocol (coefficient, -1.1731; p = 0.0465), and death rates (coefficient, 0.0519; p = 0.9710) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Blunt liver and spleen injury patients treated under new American Pediatric Surgery Association guidelines compared with old guidelines had significant decreases in ICU and hospital LOS, a decreasing trend in costs, and comparable death rates but higher readmission rates. Future studies with larger sample sizes and detailed cost analysis would explore whether updated guidelines reduce patient costs and help elucidate the veracity or potential cause of the increased readmission rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Japanese Internists' Most Memorable Diagnostic Error Cases: A Self-reflection Survey.

Objective The etiologies of diagnostic errors among internal medicine physicians are unclear. To understand the causes and characteristics of diagnostic errors through reflection by those involved in them. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire in Japan in January 2019. Over a 10-day period, a total of 2,220 participants agreed to participate in the study, of whom 687 internists were included in the final analysis. Participants were asked about their most memorable diagnostic error cases, in which the time course, situational factors, and psychosocial context could be most vividly recalled and where the participant provided care. We categorized diagnostic errors and identified contributing factors (i.e., situational factors, data collection/interpretation factors, and cognitive biases). Results Two-thirds of the identified diagnostic errors occurred in the clinic or emergency department. Errors were most frequently categorized as wrong diagnoses, followed by delayed and missed diagnoses. Errors most often involved diagnoses related to malignancy, circulatory system disorders, or infectious diseases. Situational factors were the most cited error cause, followed by data collection factors and cognitive bias. Common situational factors included limited consultation during office hours and weekends and barriers that prevented consultation with a supervisor or another department. Conclusion Internists reported situational factors as a significant cause of diagnostic errors. Other factors, such as cognitive biases, were also evident, although the difference in clinical settings may have influenced the proportions of the etiologies of the errors that were observed. Furthermore, wrong, delayed, and missed diagnoses may have distinctive associated cognitive biases.

The real-world efficacy and safety of faricimab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the TRUCKEE study - 6 month results.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Investigate real-world patients receiving faricimab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). SUBJECTS/METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective chart review was conducted on patients treated with faricimab for nAMD from February 2022 to September 2022. Collected data includes background demographics, treatment history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomic changes, and adverse events as safety markers. The main outcome measures are changes in BCVA, changes in central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events. Secondary outcome measures included treatment intervals and presence of retinal fluid. RESULTS: After one injection of faricimab, all eyes (n = 376), previously-treated (n = 337) and treatment-naïve (n = 39) eyes demonstrated a + 1.1 letter (p = 0.035), a + 0.7 letter (p = 0.196) and a + 4.9 letter (p = 0.076) improvement in BCVA, respectively, and a - 31.3 µM (p < 0.001), a - 25.3 µM (p < 0.001) and a - 84.5 µM (p < 0.001) reduction in CST, respectively. After three injections of faricimab, all eyes (n = 94), previously-treated (n = 81) and treatment-naïve (n = 13) eyes demonstrated a + 3.4 letter (p = 0.03), a + 2.7 letter (p = 0.045) and a + 8.1 letter (p = 0.437) improvement in BCVA, and a - 43.4 µM (p < 0.001), a - 38.1 µM (p < 0.001) and a - 80.1 µM (p < 0.204) reduction in CST, respectively. One case of intraocular inflammation was observed after four injections of faricimab and resolved with topical steroids. One case of infectious endophthalmitis was treated with intravitreal antibiotics and resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Faricimab has demonstrated improvement or maintenance of visual acuity for patients with nAMD, along with rapid improvement of anatomical parameters. It has been well-tolerated with low incidence of treatable intraocular inflammation. Future data will continue to investigate faricimab for real-world patients with nAMD.

Adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection with delta and omicron variants in vaccinated versus unvaccinated US veterans: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between covid-19 vaccination types and doses with adverse outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the periods of delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variant predominance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) who are affiliated to Veterans Affairs with a first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the periods of delta (1 July-30 November 2021) or omicron (1 January-30 June 2022) variant predominance. The combined cohorts had a mean age of 59.4 (standard deviation 16.3) and 87% were male. INTERVENTIONS: Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna)) and adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of ventilation, and mortality measured 30 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: In the delta period, 95 336 patients had infections with 47.6% having at least one vaccine dose, compared with 184 653 patients in the omicron period, with 72.6% vaccinated. After adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, in the delta period, two doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.43)), intensive care unit admission (0.33 (0.31 to 0.36)), ventilation (0.27 (0.24 to 0.30)), and death (0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)), compared with no vaccination. In the omicron period, receipt of two mRNA doses were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (0.60 (0.57 to 0.63)), intensive care unit admission (0.57 (0.53 to 0.62)), ventilation (0.59 (0.51 to 0.67)), and death (0.43 (0.39 to 0.48)). Additionally, a third mRNA dose was associated with lower odds of all outcomes compared with two doses: hospital admission (0.65 (0.63 to 0.69)), intensive care unit admission (0.65 (0.59 to 0.70)), ventilation (0.70 (0.61 to 0.80)), and death (0.51 (0.46 to 0.57)). The Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In veterans with recent healthcare use and high occurrence of multimorbidity, vaccination was robustly associated with lower odds of 30 day morbidity and mortality compared with no vaccination among patients infected with covid-19. The vaccination type and number of doses had a significant association with outcomes.