3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Deontological examination as a criterion for the assessment of personal healthcare professional quality : A Strobe compliant retrospective study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnoses range from 30% to 37%. The significance of deontological examinations remains high. In the pursuit of proper evaluation of diagnostic discrepancies, the establishment of pathogenesis, the mechanism of death, and a correct diagnosis are of particular importance.

          A retrospective study of deontological examinations, aimed at the detection of medical errors and carried out by the State Forensic Medicine Service during the period 1989 to 2016, was performed. The clinical and autopsy data from 1007 cases were collected in compliance with the research protocol.

          The number of deontological examinations tends to increase. In 60% of cases, the deceased were men. Most cases were in the age group of 50 to 59 years. Most examinations were carried out in relation to improperly provided healthcare services and the patient's death in surgery, admission, intensive care and obstetrics-gynecology departments. In 13% of cases, the diagnosis did not coincide and, in 79% of cases, the diagnoses fully coincided. In 68% of cases, the medical error was disproved.

          The number of deontological examinations is increasing. In most cases, clinical and autopsy diagnoses fully matched. Incorrectly clinically diagnosed intracranial injuries were the most common diagnostic mistakes. The data are similar to the results of research in other countries and would be relevant to ensuring the prevention of medical mistakes and the improvement of healthcare quality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The value of autopsies in the era of high-tech medicine: discrepant findings persist.

          Although the autopsy is still the gold standard for quality assessment of clinical diagnoses, autopsy rates have been declining over the last decades to <10%. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of autopsies in the high-tech medicine era by determining the frequency of discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnoses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic errors in the new millennium: a follow-up autopsy study.

            A systematic review of the second half of the last century suggested that diagnostic errors have decreased over time. Our previous study covering the years 1972-1992 was then the only time series showing a significant reduction of diagnostic errors from a single institution. We report here the results of a follow-up study a decade later. We analyzed discrepancies between clinical and autoptic diagnoses in 100 randomly selected medical patients who died in the wards and in the medical intensive care unit at a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Switzerland in the year 2002. Autopsy rate declined from around 90% in the years from 1972 to 1992 to 54% in the present study. Major diagnostic errors (class I and II) declined significantly from 30 to 7% (P<0.001) over the last 30 years. Class I errors decreased from 16 to 2% (P<0.001) in the year 2002. Sensitivity for cardiovascular diseases increased from 69 to 92% (P=0.006), for infectious diseases from 25 to 90% (P=0.013) and for neoplastic diseases from 89 to 100% (P=0.053). Specificity for cardiovascular diseases increased from 85 to 98% (P<0.001) but was unchanged at a high level for infectious diseases and neoplastic diseases. The number of diagnostic procedures increased from 144 to 281 (P<0.001) with an increase in the number of computer tomography investigations and of tissue sampling in the last decade. The frequency of major diagnostic errors has been further reduced at the beginning of the new millennium probably due in large part to new diagnostic tools.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Discrepancies between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings

              Autopsy examination is considered to be an essential element for medical auditing and teaching. Despite the significant progress in diagnostic procedures, autopsy has not always confirmed the clinical diagnosis. In the present study, we compared the diagnosis recorded on medical charts with reports of 96 autopsies performed at the University Teaching Hospital of the Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, Botucatu, SP, Brazil, between 1975 and 1982, and of 156 autopsies performed at the same institution between 1992 and 1996. The clinical diagnosis of the basic cause of death was confirmed at autopsy in 77% of cases. The percent confirmation fell to 60% when the immediate terminal cause of death was considered, and in 25% of cases, the terminal cause was only diagnosed at autopsy. The discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis were even larger for secondary diagnoses: 50% of them were not suspected upon clinical diagnosis. Among them, we emphasize the diagnosis of venous thromboses (83%), pulmonary embolisms (80%), bronchopneumonias (46%) and neoplasias (38%). Iatrogenic injuries were very frequent, and approximately 90% of them were not described in clinical reports. Our results suggest that highly sensitive and specific diagnostic tests are necessary but cannot substitute the clinical practice for the elaboration of correct diagnoses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Wolters Kluwer Health
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                17 January 2020
                January 2020
                : 99
                : 3
                : e18770
                Affiliations
                Department of Pathology, Forensic Medicine and Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences of the Faculty of Medicine of Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Sigitas Chmieliauskas, Department of Pathology, Forensic Medicine and Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, M. K. Ciurlionio str. 21/27, Lithuania (e-mail: sigitas.chmieliauskas@ 123456mf.vu.lt ).
                Article
                MD-D-19-06075 18770
                10.1097/MD.0000000000018770
                7220242
                32011467
                2eba0ddc-90bd-4307-9753-5fb4f4e70dba
                Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

                History
                : 2 August 2019
                : 3 December 2019
                : 11 December 2019
                Categories
                4100
                Research Article
                Observational Study
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                deontological examination,discrepancies,final diagnosis,forensic science,medical error,medical malpractice

                Comments

                Comment on this article