Incidence of Diagnostic Errors Among Unexpectedly Hospitalized Patients Using an Automated Medical History-Taking System With a Differential Diagnosis Generator: Retrospective Observational Study.

Background: Automated medical history-taking systems that generate differential diagnosis lists have been suggested to contribute to improved diagnostic accuracy. However, the effect of these systems on diagnostic errors in clinical practice remains unknown.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the incidence of diagnostic errors in an outpatient department, where an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists was implemented in clinical practice.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study using data from a community hospital in Japan. We included patients aged 20 years and older who used an AI-driven, automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists in the outpatient department of internal medicine for whom the index visit was between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, followed by unplanned hospitalization within 14 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of diagnostic errors, which were detected using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument by at least two independent reviewers. To evaluate the effect of differential diagnosis lists from the AI system on the incidence of diagnostic errors, we compared the incidence of these errors between a group where the AI system generated the final diagnosis in the differential diagnosis list and a group where the AI system did not generate the final diagnosis in the list; the Fisher exact test was used for comparison between these groups. For cases with confirmed diagnostic errors, further review was conducted to identify the contributing factors of these errors via discussion among three reviewers, using the Safer Dx Process Breakdown Supplement as a reference.

Results: A total of 146 patients were analyzed. A final diagnosis was confirmed for 138 patients and was observed in the differential diagnosis list from the AI system for 69 patients. Diagnostic errors occurred in 16 out of 146 patients (11.0%, 95% CI 6.4%-17.2%). Although statistically insignificant, the incidence of diagnostic errors was lower in cases where the final diagnosis was included in the differential diagnosis list from the AI system than in cases where the final diagnosis was not included in the list (7.2% vs 15.9%, P=.18).

Conclusions: The incidence of diagnostic errors among patients in the outpatient department of internal medicine who used an automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists seemed to be lower than the previously reported incidence of diagnostic errors. This result suggests that the implementation of an automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists could be beneficial for diagnostic safety in the outpatient department of internal medicine.