NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 258
Investigators: David E. Newman-Toker, M.D., Ph.D., Susan M. Peterson, M.D., Shervin Badihian, M.D., Ahmed Hassoon, M.D., M.P.H., Najlla Nassery, M.D., M.P.H., Donna Parizadeh, M.D., M.P.H., Lisa M. Wilson, Sc.M., Yuanxi Jia, Ph.D., Rodney Omron, M.D., M.P.H., Saraniya Tharmarajah, M.Sc., Liam Guerin, M.S.P.H., Pouya B. Bastani, M.D., Elizabeth A. Fracica, M.D., M.P.H., Susrutha Kotwal, M.D., and Karen A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Structured Abstract
Objectives:
Diagnostic errors are a known patient safety concern across all clinical settings, including the emergency department (ED). We conducted a systematic review to determine the most frequent diseases and clinical presentations associated with diagnostic errors (and resulting harms) in the ED, measure error and harm frequency, as well as assess causal factors.
Methods:
We searched PubMed®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®), and Embase® from January 2000 through September 2021. We included research studies and targeted grey literature reporting diagnostic errors or misdiagnosis-related harms in EDs in the United States or other developed countries with ED care deemed comparable by a technical expert panel. We applied standard definitions for diagnostic errors, misdiagnosis-related harms (adverse events), and serious harms (permanent disability or death). Preventability was determined by original study authors or differences in harms across groups. Two reviewers independently screened search results for eligibility; serially extracted data regarding common diseases, error/harm rates, and causes/risk factors; and independently assessed risk of bias of included studies. We synthesized results for each question and extrapolated U.S. estimates. We present 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) or plausible range (PR) bounds, as appropriate.
Results:
We identified 19,127 citations and included 279 studies. The top 15 clinical conditions associated with serious misdiagnosis-related harms (accounting for 68% [95% CI 66 to 71] of serious harms) were (1) stroke, (2) myocardial infarction, (3) aortic aneurysm and dissection, (4) spinal cord compression and injury, (5) venous thromboembolism, (6/7 – tie) meningitis and encephalitis, (6/7 – tie) sepsis, (8) lung cancer, (9) traumatic brain injury and traumatic intracranial hemorrhage, (10) arterial thromboembolism, (11) spinal and intracranial abscess, (12) cardiac arrhythmia, (13) pneumonia, (14) gastrointestinal perforation and rupture, and (15) intestinal obstruction. Average disease-specific error rates ranged from 1.5 percent (myocardial infarction) to 56 percent (spinal abscess), with additional variation by clinical presentation (e.g., missed stroke average 17%, but 4% for weakness and 40% for dizziness/vertigo). There was also wide, superimposed variation by hospital (e.g., missed myocardial infarction 0% to 29% across hospitals within a single study). An estimated 5.7 percent (95% CI 4.4 to 7.1) of all ED visits had at least one diagnostic error. Estimated preventable adverse event rates were as follows: any harm severity (2.0%, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.6), any serious harms (0.3%, PR 0.1 to 0.7), and deaths (0.2%, PR 0.1 to 0.4). While most disease-specific error rates derived from mainly U.S.-based studies, overall error and harm rates were derived from three prospective studies conducted outside the United States (in Canada, Spain, and Switzerland, with combined n=1,758). If overall rates are generalizable to all U.S. ED visits (130 million, 95% CI 116 to 144), this would translate to 7.4 million (PR 5.1 to 10.2) ED diagnostic errors annually; 2.6 million (PR 1.1 to 5.2) diagnostic adverse events with preventable harms; and 371,000 (PR 142,000 to 909,000) serious misdiagnosis-related harms, including more than 100,000 permanent, high-severity disabilities and 250,000 deaths. Although errors were often multifactorial, 89 percent (95% CI 88 to 90) of diagnostic error malpractice claims involved failures of clinical decision-making or judgment, regardless of the underlying disease present. Key process failures were errors in diagnostic assessment, test ordering, and test interpretation. Most often these were attributed to inadequate knowledge, skills, or reasoning, particularly in “atypical” or otherwise subtle case presentations. Limitations included use of malpractice claims and incident reports for distribution of diseases leading to serious harms, reliance on a small number of non-U.S. studies for overall (disease-agnostic) diagnostic error and harm rates, and methodologic variability across studies in measuring disease-specific rates, determining preventability, and assessing causal factors.
Conclusions:
Although estimated ED error rates are low (and comparable to those found in other clinical settings), the number of patients potentially impacted is large. Not all diagnostic errors or harms are preventable, but wide variability in diagnostic error rates across diseases, symptoms, and hospitals suggests improvement is possible. With 130 million U.S. ED visits, estimated rates for diagnostic error (5.7%), misdiagnosis-related harms (2.0%), and serious misdiagnosis-related harms (0.3%) could translate to more than 7 million errors, 2.5 million harms, and 350,000 patients suffering potentially preventable permanent disability or death. Over two-thirds of serious harms are attributable to just 15 diseases and linked to cognitive errors, particularly in cases with “atypical” manifestations. Scalable solutions to enhance bedside diagnostic processes are needed, and these should target the most commonly misdiagnosed clinical presentations of key diseases causing serious harms. New studies should confirm overall rates are representative of current U.S.-based ED practice and focus on identified evidence gaps (errors among common diseases with lower-severity harms, pediatric ED errors and harms, dynamic systems factors such as overcrowding, and false positives). Policy changes to consider based on this review include: (1) standardizing measurement and research results reporting to maximize comparability of measures of diagnostic error and misdiagnosis-related harms; (2) creating a National Diagnostic Performance Dashboard to track performance; and (3) using multiple policy levers (e.g., research funding, public accountability, payment reforms) to facilitate the rapid development and deployment of solutions to address this critically important patient safety concern.
Contents
Suggested citation:
Newman-Toker DE, Peterson SM, Badihian S, Hassoon A, Nassery N, Parizadeh D, Wilson LM, Jia Y, Omron R, Tharmarajah S, Guerin L, Bastani PB, Fracica EA, Kotwal S, Robinson KA. Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 258. (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 75Q80120D00003.) AHRQ Publication No. 22(23)-EHC043. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER258. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page.
This report is based on research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 75Q80120D00003). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Most AHRQ documents are publicly available to use for noncommercial purposes (research, clinical or patient education, quality improvement projects) in the United States, and do not need specific permission to be reprinted and used unless they contain material that is copyrighted by others. Specific written permission is needed for commercial use (reprinting for sale, incorporation into software, incorporation into for-profit training courses) or for use outside of the U.S. If organizational policies require permission to adapt or use these materials, AHRQ will provide such permission in writing.
AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.
A representative from AHRQ served as a Contracting Officer’s Representative and reviewed the contract deliverables for adherence to contract requirements and quality. AHRQ did not directly participate in the literature search, determination of study eligibility criteria, data analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation or drafting of this report.
AHRQ appreciates appropriate acknowledgment and citation of its work. Suggested language for acknowledgment: This work was based on an evidence report, Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review, by the Evidence-based Practice Center Program at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Rate of diagnostic errors and serious misdiagnosis-related harms for major vascular events, infections, and cancers: toward a national incidence estimate using the "Big Three".[Diagnosis (Berl). 2021]Rate of diagnostic errors and serious misdiagnosis-related harms for major vascular events, infections, and cancers: toward a national incidence estimate using the "Big Three".Newman-Toker DE, Wang Z, Zhu Y, Nassery N, Saber Tehrani AS, Schaffer AC, Yu-Moe CW, Clemens GD, Fanai M, Siegal D. Diagnosis (Berl). 2021 Feb 23; 8(1):67-84. Epub 2020 May 14.
- Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA.[BMJ Qual Saf. 2024]Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA.Newman-Toker DE, Nassery N, Schaffer AC, Yu-Moe CW, Clemens GD, Wang Z, Zhu Y, Saber Tehrani AS, Fanai M, Hassoon A, et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2024 Jan 19; 33(2):109-120. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
- Serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims: The "Big Three" - vascular events, infections, and cancers.[Diagnosis (Berl). 2019]Serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims: The "Big Three" - vascular events, infections, and cancers.Newman-Toker DE, Schaffer AC, Yu-Moe CW, Nassery N, Saber Tehrani AS, Clemens GD, Wang Z, Zhu Y, Fanai M, Siegal D. Diagnosis (Berl). 2019 Aug 27; 6(3):227-240.
- Review Lipid Screening in Childhood for Detection of Multifactorial Dyslipidemia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2016]Review Lipid Screening in Childhood for Detection of Multifactorial Dyslipidemia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLozano P, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, Dunn J, Nguyen M, Blasi P, Whitlock EP. 2016 Aug
- Review Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2020]Review Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForcePatnode CD, Perdue LA, Rossom RC, Rushkin MC, Redmond N, Thomas RG, Lin JS. 2020 Feb
- Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic ReviewDiagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
- Partial Breast Irradiation for Breast CancerPartial Breast Irradiation for Breast Cancer
- Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative and Operative Treatments for Rotator C...Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative and Operative Treatments for Rotator Cuff Tears
- Surgical Options for Inguinal Hernia: Comparative Effectiveness ReviewSurgical Options for Inguinal Hernia: Comparative Effectiveness Review
- Treatment for Glaucoma: Comparative EffectivenessTreatment for Glaucoma: Comparative Effectiveness
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...