Graff L, Russell J, Seashore J, Tate J, Elwell A, Prete M, Werdmann M, Maag R, Krivenko C, Radford M
New Britain General Hospital, New Britain, CT 06050, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Nov;7(11):1244-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00470.x.
To test the hypothesis that physician errors (failure to diagnose appendicitis at initial evaluation) correlate with adverse outcome. The authors also postulated that physician errors would correlate with delays in surgery, delays in surgery would correlate with adverse outcomes, and physician errors would occur on patients with atypical presentations.
This was a retrospective two-arm observational cohort study at 12 acute care hospitals: 1) consecutive patients who had an appendectomy for appendicitis and 2) consecutive emergency department abdominal pain patients. Outcome measures were adverse events (perforation, abscess) and physician diagnostic performance (false-positive decisions, false-negative decisions).
The appendectomy arm of the study included 1, 026 patients with 110 (10.5%) false-positive decisions (range by hospital 4.7% to 19.5%). Of the 916 patients with appendicitis, 170 (18.6%) false-negative decisions were made (range by hospital 10.6% to 27.8%). Patients who had false-negative decisions had increased risks of perforation (r = 0.59, p = 0.058) and of abscess formation (r = 0.81, p = 0.002). For admitted patients, when the inhospital delay before surgery was >20 hours, the risk of perforation was increased [2.9 odds ratio (OR) 95% CI = 1.8 to 4.8]. The amount of delay from initial physician evaluation until surgery varied with physician diagnostic performance: 7.0 hours (95% CI = 6.7 to 7.4) if the initial physician made the diagnosis, 72.4 hours (95% CI = 51.2 to 93.7) if the initial office physician missed the diagnosis, and 63.1 hours (95% CI = 47.9 to 78.4) if the initial emergency physician missed the diagnosis. Patients whose diagnosis was initially missed by the physician had fewer signs and symptoms of appendicitis than patients whose diagnosis was made initially [appendicitis score 2.0 (95% CI = 1.6 to 2.3) vs 6.5 (95% CI = 6.4 to 6.7)]. Older patients (>41 years old) had more false-negative decisions and a higher risk of perforation or abscess (3.5 OR 95% CI = 2.4 to 5.1). False-positive decisions were made for patients who had signs and symptoms similar to those of appendicitis patients [appendicitis score 5.7 (95% CI = 5.2 to 6.1) vs 6.5 (95% CI = 6.4 to 6.7)]. Female patients had an increased risk of false-positive surgery (2.3 OR 95% CI = 1.5 to 3.4). The abdominal pain arm of the study included 1,118 consecutive patients submitted by eight hospitals, with 44 patients having appendicitis. Hospitals with observation units compared with hospitals without observation units had a higher "rule out appendicitis" evaluation rate [33.7% (95% CI = 27 to 38) vs 24.7% (95% CI = 23 to 27)] and a similar hospital admission rate (27.6% vs 24.7%, p = NS). There was a lower miss-diagnosis rate (15.1% vs 19.4%, p = NS power 0.02), lower perforation rate (19.0% vs 20.6%, p = NS power 0.05), and lower abscess rate (5.6% vs 6.9%, p = NS power 0.06), but these did not reach statistical significance.
Errors in physician diagnostic decisions correlated with patient clinical findings, i.e., the missed diagnoses were on appendicitis patients with few clinical findings and unnecessary surgeries were on non-appendicitis patients with clinical findings similar to those of patients with appendicitis. Adverse events (perforation, abscess formation) correlated with physician false-negative decisions.
检验医生失误(初次评估时未能诊断出阑尾炎)与不良结局相关的假设。作者还推测,医生失误与手术延迟相关,手术延迟与不良结局相关,且医生失误会发生在表现不典型的患者身上。
这是一项在12家急症医院进行的回顾性双臂观察性队列研究:1)因阑尾炎接受阑尾切除术的连续患者,以及2)急诊科连续的腹痛患者。结局指标为不良事件(穿孔、脓肿)和医生诊断表现(假阳性诊断、假阴性诊断)。
该研究的阑尾切除组包括1026例患者,其中有110例(10.5%)假阳性诊断(各医院范围为4.7%至19.5%)。在916例阑尾炎患者中,有170例(18.6%)为假阴性诊断(各医院范围为10.6%至27.8%)。有假阴性诊断的患者发生穿孔(r = 0.59,p = 0.058)和形成脓肿(r = 0.81,p = 0.002)的风险增加。对于住院患者,若手术前的住院延迟>20小时,穿孔风险增加[比值比(OR)2.9,95%可信区间(CI)= 1.8至4.8]。从医生初次评估到手术的延迟时间因医生诊断表现而异:若初次医生做出诊断,延迟时间为7.0小时(95%CI = 6.7至7.4);若初次门诊医生漏诊,延迟时间为72.4小时(95%CI = 51.2至93.7);若初次急诊科医生漏诊,延迟时间为63.1小时(95%CI = 47.9至78.4)。最初诊断被医生漏诊的患者比最初被诊断出阑尾炎的患者有更少的阑尾炎体征和症状[阑尾炎评分2.0(95%CI = 1.6至2.3)对6.5(95%CI = 6.4至6.7)]。老年患者(>41岁)有更多假阴性诊断,发生穿孔或脓肿的风险更高(OR 3.5,95%CI = 2.4至5.1)。对有与阑尾炎患者相似体征和症状的患者做出了假阳性诊断[阑尾炎评分5.7(CI = 5.2至6.1)对6.5(95%CI = 6.4至6.7)]。女性患者接受假阳性手术的风险增加(OR 2.3,95%CI = 1.5至3.4)。该研究的腹痛组包括8家医院提交的1118例连续患者,其中44例患有阑尾炎。设有观察单元的医院与未设观察单元的医院相比,“排除阑尾炎”的评估率更高[33.7%(95%CI = 27至38)对24.7%(95%CI = 23至27)],且住院率相似(27.6%对24.7%,p = 无统计学意义)。漏诊率较低(15.1%对19.4%,p = 无统计学意义,检验效能0.02),穿孔率较低(19.0%对20.6%,p = 无统计学意义,检验效能0.05),脓肿率较低(5.6%对6.9%,p = 无统计学意义,检验效能0.06),但这些均未达到统计学显著性。
医生诊断决策失误与患者临床发现相关,即漏诊发生在临床发现少的阑尾炎患者身上,而不必要的手术则针对有与阑尾炎患者相似临床发现的非阑尾炎患者。不良事件(穿孔、脓肿形成)与医生假阴性诊断相关。