Diagnostic Discordance, Uncertainty, and Treatment Ambiguity in Community-Acquired Pneumonia : A National Cohort Study of 115 U.S. Veterans Affairs Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice in community-acquired pneumonia often assumes an accurate initial diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the evolution of pneumonia diagnoses among patients hospitalized from the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Retrospective nationwide cohort. SETTING: 118 U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers. PATIENTS: Aged 18 years or older and hospitalized from the ED between 1 January 2015 and 31 January 2022. MEASUREMENTS: Discordances between initial pneumonia diagnosis, discharge diagnosis, and radiographic diagnosis identified by natural language processing of clinician text, diagnostic coding, and antimicrobial treatment. Expressions of uncertainty in clinical notes, patient illness severity, treatments, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Among 2 383 899 hospitalizations, 13.3% received an initial or discharge diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia: 9.1% received an initial diagnosis and 10.0% received a discharge diagnosis. Discordances between initial and discharge occurred in 57%. Among patients discharged with a pneumonia diagnosis and positive initial chest image, 33% lacked an initial diagnosis. Among patients diagnosed initially, 36% lacked a discharge diagnosis and 21% lacked positive initial chest imaging. Uncertainty was frequently expressed in clinical notes (58% in ED; 48% at discharge); 27% received diuretics, 36% received corticosteroids, and 10% received antibiotics, corticosteroids, and diuretics within 24 hours. Patients with discordant diagnoses had greater uncertainty and received more additional treatments, but only patients lacking an initial pneumonia diagnosis had higher 30-day mortality than concordant patients (14.4% [95% CI, 14.1% to 14.7%] vs. 10.6% [CI, 10.4% to 10.7%]). Patients with diagnostic discordance were more likely to present to high-complexity facilities with high ED patient load and inpatient census. LIMITATION: Retrospective analysis; did not examine causal relationships. CONCLUSION: More than half of all patients hospitalized and treated for pneumonia had discordant diagnoses from initial presentation to discharge. Treatments for other diagnoses and expressions of uncertainty were common. These findings highlight the need to recognize diagnostic uncertainty and treatment ambiguity in research and practice of pneumonia-related care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Patient safety: a curriculum for teaching patient safety in emergency medicine.

The last decade has witnessed a growing awareness of medical error and the inadequacies of our health care delivery systems. The Harvard Practice Study and subsequent Institute of Medicine Reports brought national attention to long-overlooked problems with health care quality and patient safety. The Committee on Quality of Health Care in America challenged professional societies to develop curriculums on patient safety and adopt patient safety teaching into their training and certification requirements. The Patient Safety Task Force of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) was charged with that mission. The curriculum presented here offers an approach to teaching patient safety in emergency medicine.

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.

A framework for classifying factors that contribute to error in the emergency department.

The Institute of Medicine report in 1999 spurred a national movement in patient safety and focused attention on medical error as a significant cause of preventable injury and death. Throughout the past decade, the medical community has gradually acknowledged the fallibility of medical science and imperfections of our health care organizations. Before significant progress can be made to improve safety in health care, we must better understand the sources of error. This article is presented as one step in the process of change. A framework for classifying factors that contributed to errors identified in the emergency department (ED) is presented. The framework is, in its most basic form, a comprehensive checklist of all the sources of error uncovered in the course of investigating hundreds of cases referred to Stroger Hospital's emergency medicine quality assurance committee throughout the past decade. It begins with a look at error in the ED and then looks beyond the ED to examine error in the context of the wider health care system. It incorporates ideas found in safety engineering, transportation safety, human factors engineering, and our own experience in an urban, public, teaching hospital ED.