儿科急诊科使用电子触发器诊断错误的流行病学

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Prashant Mahajan, Emily White, Kathy Shaw, Sarah J Parker, James Chamberlain, Richard M Ruddy, Elizabeth R Alpern, Jacqueline Corboy, Andrew Krack, Brandon Ku, Daphne Morrison Ponce, Asha S Payne, Elizabeth Freiheit, Gregor Horvath, Giselle Kolenic, Michele Carney, Nicole Klekowski, Karen J O'Connell, Hardeep Singh
{"title":"儿科急诊科使用电子触发器诊断错误的流行病学","authors":"Prashant Mahajan, Emily White, Kathy Shaw, Sarah J Parker, James Chamberlain, Richard M Ruddy, Elizabeth R Alpern, Jacqueline Corboy, Andrew Krack, Brandon Ku, Daphne Morrison Ponce, Asha S Payne, Elizabeth Freiheit, Gregor Horvath, Giselle Kolenic, Michele Carney, Nicole Klekowski, Karen J O'Connell, Hardeep Singh","doi":"10.1111/acem.15087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We applied three electronic triggers to study frequency and contributory factors of missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs) in pediatric emergency departments (EDs): return visits within 10 days resulting in admission (Trigger 1), care escalation within 24 h of ED presentation (Trigger 2), and death within 24 h of ED visit (Trigger 3).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created an electronic query and reporting template for the triggers and applied them to electronic health record systems of five pediatric EDs for visits from 2019. Clinician reviewers manually screened identified charts and initially categorized them as \"unlikely for MOIDs\" or \"unable to rule out MOIDs\" without a detailed chart review. For the latter category, reviewers performed a detailed chart review using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to determine the presence of a MOID.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2937 ED records met trigger criteria (Trigger 1 1996 [68%], Trigger 2 829 [28%], Trigger 3 112 [4%]), of which 2786 (95%) were categorized as unlikely for MOIDs. The Revised Safer Dx Instrument was applied to 151 (5%) records and 76 (50%) had MOIDs. The overall frequency of MOIDs was 2.6% for the entire cohort, 3.0% for Trigger 1, 1.9% for Trigger 2, and 0% for Trigger 3. Brain lesions, infections, or hemorrhage; pneumonias and lung abscess; and appendicitis were the top three missed diagnoses. The majority (54%) of MOIDs cases resulted in patient harm. Contributory factors were related to patient-provider (52.6%), followed by patient factors (21.1%), system factors (13.2%), and provider factors (10.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using electronic triggers with selective record review is an effective process to screen for harmful diagnostic errors in EDs: detailed review of 5% of charts revealed MOIDs in half, of which half were harmful to the patient. With further refining, triggers can be used as effective patient safety tools to monitor diagnostic quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epidemiology of diagnostic errors in pediatric emergency departments using electronic triggers.\",\"authors\":\"Prashant Mahajan, Emily White, Kathy Shaw, Sarah J Parker, James Chamberlain, Richard M Ruddy, Elizabeth R Alpern, Jacqueline Corboy, Andrew Krack, Brandon Ku, Daphne Morrison Ponce, Asha S Payne, Elizabeth Freiheit, Gregor Horvath, Giselle Kolenic, Michele Carney, Nicole Klekowski, Karen J O'Connell, Hardeep Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.15087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We applied three electronic triggers to study frequency and contributory factors of missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs) in pediatric emergency departments (EDs): return visits within 10 days resulting in admission (Trigger 1), care escalation within 24 h of ED presentation (Trigger 2), and death within 24 h of ED visit (Trigger 3).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created an electronic query and reporting template for the triggers and applied them to electronic health record systems of five pediatric EDs for visits from 2019. Clinician reviewers manually screened identified charts and initially categorized them as \\\"unlikely for MOIDs\\\" or \\\"unable to rule out MOIDs\\\" without a detailed chart review. For the latter category, reviewers performed a detailed chart review using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to determine the presence of a MOID.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2937 ED records met trigger criteria (Trigger 1 1996 [68%], Trigger 2 829 [28%], Trigger 3 112 [4%]), of which 2786 (95%) were categorized as unlikely for MOIDs. The Revised Safer Dx Instrument was applied to 151 (5%) records and 76 (50%) had MOIDs. The overall frequency of MOIDs was 2.6% for the entire cohort, 3.0% for Trigger 1, 1.9% for Trigger 2, and 0% for Trigger 3. Brain lesions, infections, or hemorrhage; pneumonias and lung abscess; and appendicitis were the top three missed diagnoses. The majority (54%) of MOIDs cases resulted in patient harm. Contributory factors were related to patient-provider (52.6%), followed by patient factors (21.1%), system factors (13.2%), and provider factors (10.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using electronic triggers with selective record review is an effective process to screen for harmful diagnostic errors in EDs: detailed review of 5% of charts revealed MOIDs in half, of which half were harmful to the patient. With further refining, triggers can be used as effective patient safety tools to monitor diagnostic quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15087\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15087","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们使用三种电子触发器来研究儿科急诊科(EDs)错失改善诊断机会(MOIDs)的频率和促成因素:入院前10天内的复诊(触发器1),ED出现后24小时内的护理升级(触发器2),ED就诊后24小时内的死亡(触发器3)。方法:我们创建了触发器的电子查询和报告模板,并将其应用于2019年5个儿科急诊科就诊的电子病历系统。临床医师审查人员手动筛选已识别的图表,并在没有详细的图表审查的情况下将其最初归类为“不太可能为MOIDs”或“无法排除MOIDs”。对于后一类,审查员使用修订后的Safer Dx仪器进行详细的图表审查,以确定MOID的存在。结果:共有2937例ED记录符合触发标准(trigger 1 1996年[68%],trigger 2 829年[28%],trigger 3 112年[4%]),其中2786例(95%)被归类为不太可能发生MOIDs。修订后的Safer Dx仪器应用于151例(5%)记录,76例(50%)有MOIDs。在整个队列中,MOIDs的总体频率为2.6%,触发1为3.0%,触发2为1.9%,触发3为0%。脑部病变、感染或出血;肺炎和肺脓肿;阑尾炎是前三名的漏诊。大多数(54%)MOIDs病例导致患者伤害。影响因素与患者-提供者相关(52.6%),其次是患者因素(21.1%)、系统因素(13.2%)和提供者因素(10.5%)。结论:使用电子触发器和选择性记录审查是筛查急诊科有害诊断错误的有效方法:详细审查5%的图表显示一半的MOIDs,其中一半对患者有害。通过进一步改进,触发器可以作为有效的患者安全工具来监测诊断质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epidemiology of diagnostic errors in pediatric emergency departments using electronic triggers.

Objectives: We applied three electronic triggers to study frequency and contributory factors of missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs) in pediatric emergency departments (EDs): return visits within 10 days resulting in admission (Trigger 1), care escalation within 24 h of ED presentation (Trigger 2), and death within 24 h of ED visit (Trigger 3).

Methods: We created an electronic query and reporting template for the triggers and applied them to electronic health record systems of five pediatric EDs for visits from 2019. Clinician reviewers manually screened identified charts and initially categorized them as "unlikely for MOIDs" or "unable to rule out MOIDs" without a detailed chart review. For the latter category, reviewers performed a detailed chart review using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to determine the presence of a MOID.

Results: A total of 2937 ED records met trigger criteria (Trigger 1 1996 [68%], Trigger 2 829 [28%], Trigger 3 112 [4%]), of which 2786 (95%) were categorized as unlikely for MOIDs. The Revised Safer Dx Instrument was applied to 151 (5%) records and 76 (50%) had MOIDs. The overall frequency of MOIDs was 2.6% for the entire cohort, 3.0% for Trigger 1, 1.9% for Trigger 2, and 0% for Trigger 3. Brain lesions, infections, or hemorrhage; pneumonias and lung abscess; and appendicitis were the top three missed diagnoses. The majority (54%) of MOIDs cases resulted in patient harm. Contributory factors were related to patient-provider (52.6%), followed by patient factors (21.1%), system factors (13.2%), and provider factors (10.5%).

Conclusions: Using electronic triggers with selective record review is an effective process to screen for harmful diagnostic errors in EDs: detailed review of 5% of charts revealed MOIDs in half, of which half were harmful to the patient. With further refining, triggers can be used as effective patient safety tools to monitor diagnostic quality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信