A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Relating faults in diagnostic reasoning with diagnostic errors and patient harm. | LitMetric

Relating faults in diagnostic reasoning with diagnostic errors and patient harm.

Acad Med

Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Published: February 2012

Purpose: The relationship between faults in diagnostic reasoning, diagnostic errors, and patient harm has hardly been studied. This study examined suboptimal cognitive acts (SCAs; i.e., faults in diagnostic reasoning), related them to the occurrence of diagnostic errors and patient harm, and studied the causes.

Method: Four expert internists reviewed patient records of 247 dyspnea patients, using a specially developed questionnaire to detect SCAs. The patients were treated by 72 physicians between May 2007 and February 2008 in five Dutch hospitals. The findings of the record review were discussed with the treating physicians, and the causes of SCAs were classified using Reason's taxonomy of unsafe acts. Statistical analyses were performed with descriptive statistics and independent t tests to compare groups. Furthermore, a reliability study was conducted to assess the interrater reliability.

Results: SCAs occurred in 163 of 247 cases reviewed (66%). In 34 (13.8%) of all cases, a diagnostic error occurred, and in 28 (11.3%) cases, the patient was harmed. Cases with diagnostic errors or patient harm had more SCAs. However, in 10 (4.0%) of the cases, diagnostic errors or patient harm occurred, though there were no SCAs. The causes of SCAs were mostly mistakes (i.e., the planned action was incorrect).

Conclusions: In cases with more SCAs, diagnostic errors and patient harm occurred more often, suggesting that the number of SCAs per case was predictive of the occurrence of these events. The most common causes were mistakes, meaning that physicians did not realize their actions were incorrect.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31823f71e6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnostic errors
24
errors patient
24
patient harm
24
faults diagnostic
12
diagnostic reasoning
12
cases diagnostic
12
diagnostic
10
scas
9
reasoning diagnostic
8
patient
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!