You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 165 No. 13, July 11, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Investigation
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (46)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Diagnosis
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati
What's this?

Diagnostic Error in Internal Medicine

Mark L. Graber, MD; Nancy Franklin, PhD; Ruthanna Gordon, PhD

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493-1499.

Background  The goal of this study was to determine the relative contribution of system-related and cognitive components to diagnostic error and to develop a comprehensive working taxonomy.

Methods  One hundred cases of diagnostic error involving internists were identified through autopsy discrepancies, quality assurance activities, and voluntary reports. Each case was evaluated to identify system-related and cognitive factors underlying error using record reviews and, if possible, provider interviews.

Results  Ninety cases involved injury, including 33 deaths. The underlying contributions to error fell into 3 natural categories: "no fault," system-related, and cognitive. Seven cases reflected no-fault errors alone. In the remaining 93 cases, we identified 548 different system-related or cognitive factors (5.9 per case). System-related factors contributed to the diagnostic error in 65% of the cases and cognitive factors in 74%. The most common system-related factors involved problems with policies and procedures, inefficient processes, teamwork, and communication. The most common cognitive problems involved faulty synthesis. Premature closure, ie, the failure to continue considering reasonable alternatives after an initial diagnosis was reached, was the single most common cause. Other common causes included faulty context generation, misjudging the salience of findings, faulty perception, and errors arising from the use of heuristics. Faulty or inadequate knowledge was uncommon.

Conclusions  Diagnostic error is commonly multifactorial in origin, typically involving both system-related and cognitive factors. The results identify the dominant problems that should be targeted for additional research and early reduction; they also further the development of a comprehensive taxonomy for classifying diagnostic errors.


Author Affiliations: Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Northport, NY (Dr Graber); Departments of Medicine (Dr Graber) and Psychology (Dr Franklin), State University of New York at Stony Brook; and Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago (Dr Gordon).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Diagnostic difficulty and error in primary care--a systematic review
Kostopoulou et al.
Fam Pract 2008;25:400-413.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predictors of Diagnostic Accuracy and Safe Management in Difficult Diagnostic Problems in Family Medicine
Kostopoulou et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:668-680.
ABSTRACT  

Diagnostic Errors in Pediatric Echocardiography: Development of Taxonomy and Identification of Risk Factors
Benavidez et al.
Circulation 2008;117:2995-3001.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Mitigation of patient harm from testing errors in family medicine offices: a report from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network
Graham et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:201-208.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevalence of Delayed Clinician Response to Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Values
Nepple et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:439-445.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessing Quality of Care: Knowledge Matters
Holmboe et al.
JAMA 2008;299:338-340.
FULL TEXT  

Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions
Singh et al.
JCO 2007;25:5009-5018.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Medical Errors Involving Trainees: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims From 5 Insurers
Singh et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2030-2036.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Use of Clinical Simulation Systems to Train Critical Care Physicians
Lighthall and Barr
J Intensive Care Med 2007;22:257-269.
ABSTRACT  

Does Concordance with Guideline Triage Recommendations Affect Clinical Care of Patients with Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome?
Katz et al.
Med Decis Making 2007;27:423-437.
ABSTRACT  

Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning
Levy et al.
NEJM 2007;356:1272-1274.
FULL TEXT  

Identifying Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Using an Electronic Screening Algorithm
Singh et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:302-308.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessment in Medical Education
Epstein
NEJM 2007;356:387-396.
FULL TEXT  

Is ambulatory patient safety just like hospital safety, only without the "stat"?
Wachter
ANN INTERN MED 2006;145:547-549.
FULL TEXT  

Understanding diagnostic errors in medicine: a lesson from aviation.
Singh et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:159-164.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What the educators are saying
Eva and Wass
BMJ 2005;331:1006-1006.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.