Suppr超能文献

使用基于触发机制的策略识别急诊科的诊断错误。

Identifying diagnostic errors in the emergency department using trigger-based strategies.

作者信息

Khalili Mahsa, Enayati Moein, Patel Shrinath, Huschka Todd, Cabrera Daniel, Parker Sarah J, Pasupathy Kalyan, Mahajan Prashant, Bellolio Fernanda

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open Qual. 2025 Aug 6;14(3):e003389. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003389.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Diagnostic errors represent a major patient safety concern, with the potential to significantly impact patient outcomes. To address this, various trigger-based strategies have been developed to identify diagnostic errors, aiming to enhance clinical decision-making and improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of three pre-established triggers (T) in the emergency department (ED) setting and assess their effectiveness in detecting diagnostic errors.

DESIGN

Consecutive cohort, retrospective observational design.

SETTING

Academic ED with 80 000 annual visits.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults and children presenting to a single ED in the USA between 1 May 2018 and 1 January 2020.

INTERVENTION/OUTCOMES: Electronic health records (EHRs) were retrieved and categorised into trigger-positive and trigger-negative cases using the following criteria: T1-unscheduled returnvisits to the ED with admission within 7-10 days of theinitial visit; T2-care escalation from the inpatient unitto the intensive care unit (ICU) within 6, 12 or 24 hoursof ED admission; and T3-all deaths in the ED or within24 hours of ED admission, excluding palliative care. A random sample of trigger-positive cases was reviewed using the SaferDx tool to determine the presence or absence of a diagnostic error.

RESULTS

A total of 5791 trigger-positive and 118262 trigger-negative cases were identified. Among trigger-positive cases, 4159 (72%) were associated with T1, 1415 (24%) with T2, and 217 (4%) with T3. A preliminary chart review of 462 trigger-positive and 251 trigger-negative cases showed most were error-negative (279 and 217, respectively). Detailed reviews found 32 diagnostic errors among 183 trigger-positive cases, yielding PPVs of 5.4% (T1), 8.9% (T2), and 6.9% (T3). No errors were found in 34 reviewed trigger-negative cases, resulting in a 100% NPV. Sepsis was the most common diagnosis among error-positive cases (n=11, 34.4%). Those with non-specific chief complaints like altered mental status or shortness of breath had higher diagnostic error risk.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

While previously proposed EHR-based triggers can identify some diagnostic errors, they are insufficient for detecting all cases. To improve error detection performance, we recommend exploring data-driven strategies, such as machine learning techniques, to more effectively identify underlying contributing factors to diagnostic errors and enhance detection accuracy in the ED.

摘要

重要性

诊断错误是患者安全的一个主要问题,有可能对患者的治疗结果产生重大影响。为了解决这一问题,已开发出各种基于触发因素的策略来识别诊断错误,旨在加强临床决策并提高患者安全。

目的

评估三种预先设定的触发因素(T)在急诊科环境中的表现,并评估其在检测诊断错误方面的有效性。

设计

连续队列、回顾性观察设计。

地点

年就诊量达80000人次的学术性急诊科。

参与者

2018年5月1日至2020年1月1日期间在美国一家急诊科就诊的成人和儿童。

干预措施/结果:检索电子健康记录(EHR),并根据以下标准将其分为触发因素阳性和触发因素阴性病例:T1 - 在初次就诊后7 - 10天内计划外返回急诊科并住院;T2 - 在急诊科入院后6、12或24小时内从住院病房升级到重症监护病房(ICU);T3 - 在急诊科或急诊科入院后24小时内死亡,不包括姑息治疗。使用SaferDx工具对触发因素阳性病例的随机样本进行审查,以确定是否存在诊断错误。

结果

共识别出5791例触发因素阳性病例和118262例触发因素阴性病例。在触发因素阳性病例中,4159例(72%)与T1相关,1415例(24%)与T2相关,217例(4%)与T3相关。对462例触发因素阳性病例和251例触发因素阴性病例进行的初步病历审查显示,大多数病例为错误阴性(分别为279例和217例)。详细审查发现183例触发因素阳性病例中有32例诊断错误,T1的阳性预测值为5.4%,T2为8.9%,T3为6.9%。在34例经审查的触发因素阴性病例中未发现错误,阴性预测值为100%。脓毒症是错误阳性病例中最常见的诊断(n = \h 11,34.4%)。那些有精神状态改变或呼吸急促等非特异性主要症状的患者诊断错误风险更高。

结论及意义

虽然先前提出的基于电子健康记录的触发因素可以识别一些诊断错误,但它们不足以检测所有病例。为了提高错误检测性能,我们建议探索数据驱动的策略,如机器学习技术,以更有效地识别诊断错误的潜在促成因素,并提高急诊科的检测准确性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef24/12336471/1e9f567457b7/bmjoq-14-3-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验