 |
|
Changes in Rates of Autopsy-Detected Diagnostic Errors Over Time
A Systematic Review
Kaveh G. Shojania, MD;
Elizabeth C. Burton, MD;
Kathryn M. McDonald, MM;
Lee Goldman, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2003;289:2849-2856.
Context Substantial discrepanies exist between clinical diagnoses and findings at autopsy. Autopsy may be used as a tool for quality management to analyze diagnostic discrepanies.
Objective To determine the rate at which autopsies detect important, clinically missed diagnoses, and the extent to which this rate has changed over time.
Data Sources A systematic literature search for English-language articles available on MEDLINE from 1966 to April 2002, using the search terms autopsy, postmortem changes, post-mortem, postmortem, necropsy, and posthumous, identified 45 studies reporting 53 distinct autopsy series meeting prospectively defined criteria. Reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies, and the final bibliography was distributed to experts in the field to identify missing or unpublished studies.
Study Selection Included studies reported clinically missed diagnoses involving a primary cause of death (major errors), with the most serious being those likely to have affected patient outcome (class I errors).
Data Extraction Logistic regression was performed using data from 53 distinct autopsy series over a 40-year period and adjusting for the effects of changes in autopsy rates, country, case mix (general autopsies; adult medical; adult intensive care; adult or pediatric surgery; general pediatrics or pediatric inpatients; neonatal or pediatric intensive care; and other autopsy), and important methodological features of the primary studies.
Data Synthesis Of 53 autopsy series identified, 42 reported major errors and 37 reported class I errors. Twenty-six autopsy series reported both major and class I error rates. The median error rate was 23.5% (range, 4.1%-49.8%) for major errors and 9.0% (range, 0%-20.7%) for class I errors. Analyses of diagnostic error rates adjusting for the effects of case mix, country, and autopsy rate yielded relative decreases per decade of 19.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-33.8%) for major errors and 33.4% (95% [CI], 8.4%-51.6%) for class I errors. Despite these decreases, we estimated that a contemporary US institution (based on autopsy rates ranging from 100% [the extrapolated extreme at which clinical selection is eliminated] to 5% [roughly the national average]), could observe a major error rate from 8.4% to 24.4% and a class I error rate from 4.1% to 6.7%.
Conclusion The possibility that a given autopsy will reveal important unsuspected diagnoses has decreased over time, but remains sufficiently high that encouraging ongoing use of the autopsy appears warranted.
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (Drs Shojania and Goldman); Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Baylor Health Care System, Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex (Dr Burton); and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (Ms McDonald).
RELATED ARTICLE
Autopsy
Sharon Parmet, Cassio Lynm, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2003;289(21):2894.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Autopsy findings in 42 consecutive patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Daniels et al.
Eur Respir J 2008;32:170-174.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The conventional autopsy in modern medicine
Ayoub and Chow
JRSM 2008;101:177-181.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Vanishing Nonforensic Autopsy
Shojania and Burton
NEJM 2008;358:873-875.
FULL TEXT
Can cause of death be predicted from the pre-necropsy information provided in coroners' cases?
Biggs et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2008;61:124-126.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison between clinical and autopsy diagnoses in a cardiology hospital
Saad et al.
Heart 2007;93:1414-1419.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reversing the slow death of the clinical necropsy: developing the post of the Pathology Liaison Nurse
Limacher et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2007;60:1129-1134.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Validation of cause-of-death statistics in urban China
Rao et al.
Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:642-651.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Overestimation of clinical diagnostic performance caused by low necropsy rates
Shojania et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:408-413.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diagnostic Error in Internal Medicine
Graber et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1493-1499.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Discrepancies between clinical and postmortem diagnoses in Jamaica: a study from the University Hospital of the West Indies
Gibson et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2004;57:980-985.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Forgotten but Not Gone
Jha et al.
NEJM 2004;350:2399-2404.
FULL TEXT
Death of the teaching autopsy: Advances in technology have not reduced the value of the autopsy
Fruhbeck
BMJ 2004;328:165-166.
FULL TEXT
A pilot study in ophthalmology of inter-rater reliability in classifying diagnostic errors: an underinvestigated area of medical error
Margo
Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:416-420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
