Inappropriate Diagnosis of Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Adults.

Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment. Results: Of the 17 290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.

Associations Between Hospitalist Shift Busyness, Diagnostic Confidence, and Resource Utilization: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized patients are at risk for diagnostic errors. Hospitalists caring for these patients are often multitasking when overseeing patient care. We aimed to measure hospitalist workload and understand its influences on diagnostic performance in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, pilot observational study of hospitalists admitting new patients to the hospital. Hospitalists completed an abridged Mindful Attention Awareness Tool and a survey about diagnostic confidence at shift completion. Data on differential diagnoses and resource utilization (e.g., laboratory, imaging tests ordered, and consultations) were collected from the medical record. The number of admissions and paging volume per shift were used as separate proxies for shift busyness. Data were analyzed using linear mixed effects models (continuous outcomes) or mixed effects logistic regression (dichotomous outcomes). RESULTS: Of the 53 hospitalists approached, 47 (89%) agreed to participate; complete data were available for 37 unique hospitalists who admitted 160 unique patients. Increases in admissions (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 3.82; P = 0.04) and pages (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.21; P = 0.01) were associated with increased odds of hospitalists finding it "difficult to focus on what is happening in the present." Increased pages was associated with a decrease in the number of listed differential diagnoses (coefficient, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.003; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of hospitalist busyness and its associations with factors that may influence diagnosis in a real-world environment was feasible and demonstrated important implications on physician focus and differential diagnosis.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.