急诊科主动脉夹层:诊断延误和失败的医学-法律视角。

IF 2
CJEM Pub Date : 2025-08-21 DOI:10.1007/s43678-025-00999-y
Jacqueline H Fortier, Mehrnaz Mostafapour, Robert Ohle, Kate Barbosa, Richard Liu, Ming Guo, Gary E Garber, Heather E Murray
{"title":"急诊科主动脉夹层:诊断延误和失败的医学-法律视角。","authors":"Jacqueline H Fortier, Mehrnaz Mostafapour, Robert Ohle, Kate Barbosa, Richard Liu, Ming Guo, Gary E Garber, Heather E Murray","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00999-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Aortic dissection is a life-threatening emergency and delayed or missed diagnoses can result in significant morbidity and mortality for patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of medico-legal cases from a national repository involving thoracic aortic dissection seen in the emergency department during a 10-year period. We thematically analyzed peer expert criticism of the care in these cases, including provider, team, and systems factors related to diagnostic issues. We also applied two clinical decision tools to explore whether use of these tools could have affected the diagnostic process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3,531 medico-legal cases in the emergency department during our study period, just 43 were related to aortic dissection. Patients were primarily male (68.2%), presented for care at large urban centers (65.1%), and were triaged as urgent or emergent (72.1%). Thirty-six patients died of their aortic dissection. A thematic analysis identified atypical presentations, diagnostic anchoring, misinterpretation or misuse of tests, communication breakdowns, and resource limitations as common in these cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Missed diagnoses of aortic dissection in the ED often result from a combination of cognitive, communication, and system-level factors. Understanding these contributors can inform evidence-based, systems-level supports and strategies to enhance diagnostic accuracy and reduce patient harm.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aortic dissection in the ED: a medico-legal perspective on diagnostic delays and failures.\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline H Fortier, Mehrnaz Mostafapour, Robert Ohle, Kate Barbosa, Richard Liu, Ming Guo, Gary E Garber, Heather E Murray\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-025-00999-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Aortic dissection is a life-threatening emergency and delayed or missed diagnoses can result in significant morbidity and mortality for patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of medico-legal cases from a national repository involving thoracic aortic dissection seen in the emergency department during a 10-year period. We thematically analyzed peer expert criticism of the care in these cases, including provider, team, and systems factors related to diagnostic issues. We also applied two clinical decision tools to explore whether use of these tools could have affected the diagnostic process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3,531 medico-legal cases in the emergency department during our study period, just 43 were related to aortic dissection. Patients were primarily male (68.2%), presented for care at large urban centers (65.1%), and were triaged as urgent or emergent (72.1%). Thirty-six patients died of their aortic dissection. A thematic analysis identified atypical presentations, diagnostic anchoring, misinterpretation or misuse of tests, communication breakdowns, and resource limitations as common in these cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Missed diagnoses of aortic dissection in the ED often result from a combination of cognitive, communication, and system-level factors. Understanding these contributors can inform evidence-based, systems-level supports and strategies to enhance diagnostic accuracy and reduce patient harm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJEM\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJEM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00999-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00999-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:主动脉夹层是危及生命的急症,延迟或漏诊可导致患者显著的发病率和死亡率。方法:我们对10年间急诊部门所见的涉及胸主动脉夹层的国家资料库中的医学-法律案例进行了定量和定性分析。我们按主题分析了这些病例中同行专家对护理的批评,包括与诊断问题相关的提供者、团队和系统因素。我们还应用了两种临床决策工具来探索这些工具的使用是否会影响诊断过程。结果:在我们的研究期间,急诊科的3531例法医学病例中,只有43例与主动脉夹层有关。患者主要是男性(68.2%),在大型城市中心就诊(65.1%),并被分类为紧急或急诊(72.1%)。36名患者死于主动脉夹层。专题分析确定了这些案例中常见的非典型陈述、诊断锚定、对测试的误解或误用、沟通中断和资源限制。结论:ED的主动脉夹层漏诊通常是由于认知、沟通和系统水平因素的综合作用。了解这些因素可以为基于证据的系统级支持和战略提供信息,以提高诊断准确性并减少对患者的伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aortic dissection in the ED: a medico-legal perspective on diagnostic delays and failures.

Purpose: Aortic dissection is a life-threatening emergency and delayed or missed diagnoses can result in significant morbidity and mortality for patients.

Methods: We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of medico-legal cases from a national repository involving thoracic aortic dissection seen in the emergency department during a 10-year period. We thematically analyzed peer expert criticism of the care in these cases, including provider, team, and systems factors related to diagnostic issues. We also applied two clinical decision tools to explore whether use of these tools could have affected the diagnostic process.

Results: Of 3,531 medico-legal cases in the emergency department during our study period, just 43 were related to aortic dissection. Patients were primarily male (68.2%), presented for care at large urban centers (65.1%), and were triaged as urgent or emergent (72.1%). Thirty-six patients died of their aortic dissection. A thematic analysis identified atypical presentations, diagnostic anchoring, misinterpretation or misuse of tests, communication breakdowns, and resource limitations as common in these cases.

Conclusions: Missed diagnoses of aortic dissection in the ED often result from a combination of cognitive, communication, and system-level factors. Understanding these contributors can inform evidence-based, systems-level supports and strategies to enhance diagnostic accuracy and reduce patient harm.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信