08
Oct 2024
A study indicates that harmful diagnostic errors could affect 1 in every 14 patients in general medical hospitals.
Published in General on October 08, 2024
 
                                                            Harmful diagnostic errors could be affecting up to 1 in every 14 hospital patients—specifically those receiving general medical care—according to findings from a single-center study in the US published online in the journal BMJ Quality & Safety.
According to the researchers, most of these errors (85%) are likely preventable, highlighting the urgent need for new strategies to enhance surveillance and prevent such mistakes from occurring.
Earlier reports suggest that current trigger tools used to identify medical mistakes are insufficient for detecting harmful diagnostic errors, particularly those with less severe outcomes. In response, the researchers developed and validated a structured case review process that enables clinicians to analyze the electronic health record (EHR) to evaluate the diagnostic process for hospital patients, assess the likelihood of a diagnostic error, and determine the impact and severity of the harm caused.
They applied this process to retrospectively estimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in a randomly selected sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9,147 who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April–December 2020).
Cases identified as high-risk for diagnostic errors included transfers to intensive care 24 or more hours after admission (130 cases; 100%); deaths within 90 days of admission, whether in the hospital or after discharge (141 cases; 38.5%); and complex clinical issues without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days (298 cases; 7%).
Complex clinical issues encompassed clinical deterioration, treatment by multiple medical teams, unexpected events such as cancelled surgeries, and unclear or inconsistent diagnostic information recorded in the medical notes.
The 106 cases classified as low risk (2.5%) did not meet any of the high-risk criteria.
Each case underwent review by two trained adjudicators who evaluated the likelihood of a diagnostic error and identified associated process failures using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy modified for acute care. Harm was categorized as minor, moderate, severe, or fatal, and the assessors also evaluated whether the diagnostic error contributed to the harm and if it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainty regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were subjected to further review by an expert panel.
Among all reviewed cases, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances involving 154 patients. These errors included intensive care transfers (54), deaths within 90 days (34), complex clinical issues (52), and low-risk patients (20).
Harmful diagnostic errors were determined to have occurred in 84 cases (82 patients), broken down as follows: 37 cases (28.5%) among intensive care transfers, 18 cases (13%) among patients who died within 90 days, 23 cases (8%) among those with complex clinical issues, and six cases (6%) in low-risk patients.
The severity of harm was classified as minor in five cases (6%), moderate in 36 cases (43%), major in 25 cases (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, it was estimated that 85% of harmful diagnostic errors were preventable, with older, white, non-Hispanic, non-privately insured, and high-risk patients identified as most vulnerable.
When weighted to reflect the population, researchers estimated that the prevalence of harmful, preventable, and severely harmful diagnostic errors in general medical hospital patients was just over 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
Process failures were significantly linked to diagnostic errors, particularly uncertainties in initial assessments and complex diagnostic testing and interpretation (four times the risk), suboptimal subspecialty consultations (three times the risk), patient-reported concerns (three times the risk), and deficiencies in history taking (2.5 times the risk).
Among the errors, 40 cases (48%) related to the primary diagnosis at admission or discharge, and 44 cases (52.5%) to a secondary diagnosis; 52 cases (62%) were classified as delays. Errors resulting in major or fatal harm were common in the high-risk group (55%, 43 out of 78) but rare in the low-risk group (0 out of 6).
The most frequently associated diagnoses with these diagnostic errors included heart failure, acute kidney failure, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia (low blood oxygen levels).
The researchers suggest that careful error analysis and the integration of AI tools into clinical workflows could help reduce their prevalence by enhancing monitoring and enabling timely interventions.
This is an observational study based on estimates derived from data on patients receiving general medical care at a single centre, and the researchers advise that findings should be interpreted within this context. They also acknowledge that the sample was limited to patients with hospital stays under 21 days and that the study relied on information captured in electronic health records, which may inaccurately record deaths within 90 days.
Moreover, for patients and their families looking for accommodation, considering hospital stay accommodation options can significantly alleviate stress during this challenging time. Various facilities in Melbourne offer supportive environments and comfortable stays that cater to the needs of patients and their relatives.
Nonetheless, they conclude, "We estimate that a harmful diagnostic error occurred in one of every 14 patients hospitalized in general medicine, the majority of which were preventable. Our findings underscore the need for novel adverse diagnostic error surveillance approaches."
 
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                    ![“Surprise Noises Can Feel Like Pain”: New Airport Rule Eases Travel for Autistic Passengers Emma Beardsley once dreaded going through airport security. “I used to panic every time they made me take my headphones off at security,” she recalls. “The noise and the unpredictability can be overwhelming.” Now, thanks to a new policy allowing noise-cancelling headphones to remain on during security checks, Beardsley says she can “travel more confidently and safely.”
In Australia, one in four people lives with a disability, yet the travel system has often failed to accommodate varied needs. Autism-inclusion advocates at Aspect Autism Friendly have welcomed the government’s updated guidelines that let autistic travellers keep their noise-reducing headphones on during screening, calling it a “major step” toward more accessible air travel.
Dr Tom Tutton, head of Aspect Autism Friendly, emphasises the significance of travel in people’s lives: it connects them with family, supports work and learning, and offers new experiences. But he notes the typical airport environment can be especially intense for autistic travellers:
“Airports are busy, noisy, random and quite confusing places … you’ve got renovations, food courts, blenders, coffee grinders, trolleys clattering … and constant security announcements. It’s really, really overwhelming.”
“What might be an irritation for me is something that would absolutely destroy my colleague [who has autism]. Surprise noises of a certain tone or volume can genuinely be experienced as painful.”
Under the new policy — now published on the Australian Government’s Department of Home Affairs website — passengers who rely on noise-cancelling headphones as a disability support may request to wear them through body scanners. The headphones may undergo secondary inspection instead of being forcibly removed.
Dr Tutton describes this adjustment as small in procedure but huge in impact: it removes a key point of sensory distress at a critical moment in the journey. Aspect Autism Friendly is collaborating with airports to ensure that all security staff are informed of the change.
For many autistic travellers, headphones aren’t just optional — they are essential to navigating loud, unpredictable environments. Until now, being required to remove them during security has caused distress or even deterred travel.
Aspect Autism Friendly also works directly with airports, offering staff training, autism-friendly audits, visual stories, sensory maps, and other accommodations. Their prior collaborations include autism-friendly initiatives with Qantas. Dr Tutton notes:
“Airports have become this big focus for us of trying to make that little bit of travel easier and better.”
He advises people planning trips for travellers with disabilities to consult airport websites ahead of time. Some airports already offer quiet rooms or sensory zones — Adelaide, for instance, provides spaces where travellers can step away from the noise and regroup before boarding.
Beyond helping autistic individuals, Dr Tutton believes that more accessible airports benefit everyone. “These supports help lots of other people too,” he says. “When people are more patient, kind and supportive, the benefits flow to everyone. We all prefer environments that are well-structured, sensory-friendly, predictable and easy to navigate.”](https://c3eeedc15c0611d84c18-6d9497f165d09befa49b878e755ba3c4.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/photos/blogs/article-1061-1759742013.jpg) 
                                                                                    