Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Aug 23;9(1):77-88.
doi: 10.1515/dx-2021-0033.

Analyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach

Jacqueline A Griffin  1 , Kevin Carr  2 , Kerrin Bersani  2 , Nicholas Piniella  2 , Daniel Motta-Calderon  2 , Maria Malik  2 , Alison Garber  2 , Kumiko Schnock  2 , Ronen Rozenblum  2   3 , David W Bates  2   3 , Jeffrey L Schnipper  2   3 , Anuj K Dalal  2   3
Affiliations

Analyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach

Jacqueline A Griffin et al. Diagnosis (Berl). .

Abstract

Objectives: We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error.

Methods: Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process.

Results: Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in "Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up" and "Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment" process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions.

Conclusions: Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.

Keywords: DEER taxonomy; acute care; diagnostic error.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Dr. Dalal reports consulting fees from MayaMD, which makes AI software for patient engagement and decision support. Dr. Rozenblum reports having an equity in Hospitech Respiration Ltd, which makes Airway Management Solutions. Dr. Bates reports grants and personal fees from EarlySense, personal fees from CDI Negev, equity from ValeraHealth, equity from Clew, equity from MDClone, personal fees and equity from AESOP, and grants from IBM Watson Health, outside the submitted work. Authors otherwise report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Purposive sampling of representative cases of diagnostic error in hospitalized patients.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Frequency of significant failure points and all failure points among process dimensions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Singh H, Graber ML. Improving diagnosis in health care — the next imperative for patient safety. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2493–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512241. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Medford-Davis L, Park E, Shlamovitz G, Suliburk J, Meyer AND, Singh H. Diagnostic errors related to acute abdominal pain in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2016;33:253–9. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2015-204754. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zwaan L, Schiff GD, Singh H. Advancing the research agenda for diagnostic error reduction. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(Suppl 2):52–7. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001624. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zwaan L, Singh H. Diagnostic error in hospitals : finding forests not just the big trees. 2020. pp. 1–4. - PubMed
    1. Newman-Toker DE, Pronovost PJ. Diagnostic errors the next Frontier for patient safety. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2009;301:1060–2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.249. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources