Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Emergency Department: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims From 4 Liability Insurers
Study objectives
Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are an important patient safety concern, but little is known about their cause. We identify types and causes of missed or delayed diagnoses in the ED.
Methods
This is a review of 122 closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers in which patients had alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ED. Trained physician reviewers examined the litigation files and the associated medical records to determine whether an adverse outcome because of a missed diagnosis had occurred, what breakdowns were involved in the missed diagnosis, and what factors contributed to it. Main outcome measures were missed diagnoses, process breakdowns, and contributing factors.
Results
A total of 79 claims (65%) involved missed ED diagnoses that harmed patients. Forty-eight percent of these missed diagnoses were associated with serious harm, and 39% resulted in death. The leading breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (58% of errors), failure to perform an adequate medical history or physical examination (42%), incorrect interpretation of a diagnostic test (37%), and failure to order an appropriate consultation (33%). The leading contributing factors to the missed diagnoses were cognitive factors (96%), patient-related factors (34%), lack of appropriate supervision (30%), inadequate handoffs (24%), and excessive workload (23%). The median numbers of process breakdowns and contributing factors per missed diagnosis were 2 and 3, respectively.
Conclusion
Missed diagnoses in the ED have a complex cause. They are typically the result of multiple breakdowns in the diagnostic process and several contributing factors.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Supervising editor: Robert L. Wears, MD, MSAuthors contributions: TAB and DMS conceived the study and obtained funding. AK, TKG, and DMS designed this analysis. TKG, ALP, EJT, and DMS designed the data collection instruments. AK, TKG, ALP, EJT, and DMS trained physician reviewers. TAB and DMS undertook recruitment of participating sites. ALP, CY, and DMS managed the data collection, including quality control. RG contributed to quality control efforts after the data had been collected. AK, TKG, CY, and DMS analyzed the data. AK, TKG, and DMS drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to revision of its intellectual content. AK, TKG, and DMS take responsibility for the paper as a whole.Funding and support: This study was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS011886-03) and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation. Dr. Studdert was also supported by grant KO2HS11285 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Reprints not available from the authors.Publication dates: Available online December 1, 2006.
PII: S0196-0644(06)00938-3
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.035
© 2007 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Refers to article:
- Replacing Hindsight With Insight: Toward Better Understanding of Diagnostic Failures , 06 November 2006
