Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study

Anuj K. Dalal, Savanna Plombon, Kaitlyn Konieczny, Daniel Motta-Calderon, Maria Malik, Alison Garber, Alyssa Lam, Nicholas Piniella, Marie Leeson, Pamela Garabedian, Abhishek Goyal, Stephanie Roulier, Cathy Yoon, Julie M. Fiskio, Kumiko O. Schnock, Ronen Rozenblum, Jacqueline Griffin, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, Stuart Lipsitz, David W. BatesDavid Lee, Daniel Palazuelos, Myrna Katalina Serna, Anne Kozak, Khelsea O'Brien, Shela Shah, Mohammed Wazir, Chadi Cortas, Caroline Yang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Adverse event surveillance approaches underestimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors (DEs) related to hospital care. Methods We conducted a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of a stratified sample of patients hospitalised on general medicine using four criteria: transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), death within 90 days, complex clinical events, and none of the aforementioned high-risk criteria. Cases in higher-risk subgroups were over-sampled in predefined percentages. Each case was reviewed by two adjudicators trained to judge the likelihood of DE using the Safer Dx instrument; characterise harm, preventability and severity; and identify associated process failures using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy modified for acute care. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainty about DE or impact were reviewed by an expert panel. We used descriptive statistics to report population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs by demographic variables based on the weighted sample, and characteristics of harmful DEs. Multivariable models were used to adjust association of process failures with harmful DEs. Results Of 9147 eligible cases, 675 were randomly sampled within each subgroup: 100% of ICU transfers, 38.5% of deaths within 90 days, 7% of cases with complex clinical events and 2.4% of cases without high-risk criteria. Based on the weighted sample, the population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs were 7.2% (95% CI 4.66 to 9.80), 6.1% (95% CI 3.79 to 8.50) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.55 to 1.68), respectively. Harmful DEs were frequently characterised as delays (61.9%). Severely harmful DEs were frequent in high-risk cases (55.1%). In multivariable models, process failures in assessment, diagnostic testing, subspecialty consultation, patient experience, and history were significantly associated with harmful DEs. Conclusions We estimate that a harmful DE occurred in 1 of every 14 patients hospitalised on general medicine, the majority of which were preventable. Our findings underscore the need for novel approaches for adverse DE surveillance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)377-388
Number of pages12
JournalBMJ Quality and Safety
Volume34
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2025

Keywords

  • Adverse events, epidemiology and detection
  • Diagnostic errors
  • Hospital medicine
  • Information technology
  • Patient safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this