Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12093717

Diagnostic errors.

Abstract

One of the most complex and challenging tasks facing physicians is the need to make a diagnosis. Recent research has focused attention on medical errors alleged to have resulted in increased patient morbidity and mortality. A number of authorities have suggested methods to track and prevent errors. Most have dealt with systems' changes and fail-safe methods to prevent medication errors and commission of errors during treatment. Few have addressed methods to find and prevent diagnostic errors. Unless diagnostic error is either avoided or corrected early, fail-safe methods to prevent medication and treatment errors will ultimately fail to improve patient outcome. American medical literature, particularly postmortem studies, have documented diagnostic error since at least 1912. European literature shows the problem is worldwide. The limits of human memory and errors in both observation and processing of information during problem solving contribute to the commission of errors. The purpose of this article is to examine the thinking patterns and cognitive errors that can result in diagnostic error, and suggest instructional strategies that can be used to alert residents and attending physicians to these potential problems so they can be avoided.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gloria J Kuhn. 2002. Diagnostic errors.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb02155.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Group practice.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Diagnostic Errors↗

The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital.

BACKGROUND: Studies of hospitalized patients identify safety as a significant problem, but few data are available regarding injuries occurring after discharge. Patients may be vulnerable during this transition period. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, severity, preventability, and "ameliorability" of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital and to develop strategies for improving patient safety during this interval. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: 400 consecutive patients discharged home from the general medical service. MEASUREMENTS: The three main outcomes were adverse events, defined as injuries occurring as a result of medical management; preventable adverse events, defined as adverse events judged to have been caused by an error; and ameliorable adverse events, defined as adverse events whose severity could have been decreased. Posthospital course was determined by performing a medical record review and a structured telephone interview approximately 3 weeks after each patient's discharge. Outcomes were determined by independent physician reviews. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients had adverse events after discharge (19% [95% CI, 15% to 23%]). Of these, 23 had preventable adverse events (6% [CI, 4% to 9%]) and 24 had ameliorable adverse events (6% [CI, 4% to 9%]). Three percent of injuries were serious laboratory abnormalities, 65% were symptoms, 30% were symptoms associated with a nonpermanent disability, and 3% were permanent disabilities. Adverse drug events were the most common type of adverse event (66% [CI, 55% to 76%]), followed by procedure-related injuries (17% [CI, 8% to 26%]). Of the 25 adverse events resulting in at least a nonpermanent disability, 12 were preventable (48% [CI, 28% to 68%]) and 6 were ameliorable (24% [CI, 7% to 41%]). CONCLUSION: Adverse events occurred frequently in the peridischarge period, and many could potentially have been prevented or ameliorated with simple strategies.

Diagnostic Errors↗