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

      The discrepancy between admission and discharge diagnoses: Underlying factors and potential clinical outcomes in a low socioeconomic country

      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

          Objective

          The discrepancy between admission and discharge diagnosis can lead to possible adverse patient outcomes. There are gaps in integrated studies, and less is understood about its characteristics and effects. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of diagnostic discrepancies at admission and discharge.

          Design and data sources

          This retrospective study reviewed the admitting and discharge diagnoses of adult patients admitted at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH), Internal Medicine Department between October 2018 and February 2019. The frequency and outcomes of discrepancies in patient diagnoses were noted among Emergency Department (ED) physician versus admitting physician, admitting physician versus discharge physician, and ED physician versus discharge physician for the full match, partial match, and mismatch diagnoses. The studied outcomes included interdepartmental transfer, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) transfer, in-hospital mortality, readmission within 30 days, and the length of stay. For simplicity, we only analyzed the factors for the discrepancy among ED physicians and discharge physicians.

          Results

          Out of 537 admissions, there were 25.3–27.2% admissions with full match diagnoses while 18.6–19.4% and 45.3–47.9% had mismatch and partial match diagnoses respectively. The discrepancy resulted in an increased number of interdepartmental transfers (5–5.8%), ICU transfers (5.6–8.7%), in-hospital mortality (8–11%), and readmissions within 30 days in ED (14.4%-16.7%). A statistically significant difference was observed for the ward’s length of stay with the most prolonged stay in partially matched diagnoses (6.3 ± 5.4 days). Among all the factors that were evaluated for the diagnostic discrepancy, older age, multi-morbidities, level of trainee clerking the patient, review by ED faculty, incomplete history, and delay in investigations at ED were associated with significant discrepant diagnoses.

          Conclusions

          Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant and significant healthcare problem. Fixed patient or physician characteristics do not readily predict diagnostic discrepancies. To reduce the diagnostic discrepancy, emphasis should be given to good history taking and thorough physical examination. Patients with older age and multi-morbidity should receive significant consideration.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

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

          The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.

          In a sample of 30,195 randomly selected hospital records, we identified 1133 patients (3.7 percent) with disabling injuries caused by medical treatment. We report here an analysis of these adverse events and their relation to error, negligence, and disability. Two physician-reviewers independently identified the adverse events and evaluated them with respect to negligence, errors in management, and extent of disability. One of the authors classified each event according to type of injury. We tested the significance of differences in rates of negligence and disability among categories with at least 30 adverse events. Drug complications were the most common type of adverse event (19 percent), followed by wound infections (14 percent) and technical complications (13 percent). Nearly half the adverse events (48 percent) were associated with an operation. Adverse events during surgery were less likely to be caused by negligence (17 percent) than nonsurgical ones (37 percent). The proportion of adverse events due to negligence was highest for diagnostic mishaps (75 percent), noninvasive therapeutic mishaps ("errors of omission") (77 percent), and events occurring in the emergency room (70 percent). Errors in management were identified for 58 percent of the adverse events, among which nearly half were attributed to negligence. Although the prevention of many adverse events must await improvements in medical knowledge, the high proportion that are due to management errors suggests that many others are potentially preventable now. Reducing the incidence of these events will require identifying their causes and developing methods to prevent error or reduce its effects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001.

            Despite widespread concern regarding the quality and safety of health care, and a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program intended to improve that care in the United States, there is only limited information on whether quality is improving. To track national and state-level changes in performance on 22 quality indicators for care of Medicare beneficiaries. National observational cross-sectional studies of national and state-level fee-for-service data for Medicare beneficiaries during 1998-1999 (baseline) and 2000-2001 (follow-up). Twenty-two QIO quality indicators abstracted from state-wide random samples of medical records for inpatient fee-for-service care and from Medicare beneficiary surveys or Medicare claims for outpatient care. Absolute improvement is defined as the change in performance from baseline to follow-up (measured in percentage points for all indicators except those measured in minutes); relative improvement is defined as the absolute improvement divided by the difference between the baseline performance and perfect performance (100%). The median state's performance improved from baseline to follow-up on 20 of the 22 indicators. In the median state, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care on the median indicator increased from 69.5% to 73.4%, a 12.8% relative improvement. The average relative improvement was 19.9% for outpatient indicators combined and 11.9% for inpatient indicators combined (P<.001). For all but one indicator, absolute improvement was greater in states in which performance was low at baseline than those in which it was high at baseline (median r = -0.43; range: 0.12 to -0.93). When states were ranked on each indicator, the state's average rank was highly stable over time (r = 0.93 for 1998-1999 vs 2000-2001). Care for Medicare fee-for-service plan beneficiaries improved substantially between 1998-1999 and 2000-2001, but a much larger opportunity remains for further improvement. Relative rankings among states changed little. The improved care is consistent with QIO activities over this period, but these cross-sectional data do not provide conclusive information about the degree to which the improvement can be attributed to the QIOs' quality improvement efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Diagnostic error increases mortality and length of hospital stay in patients presenting through the emergency room

              Background Diagnostic errors occur frequently, especially in the emergency room. Estimates about the consequences of diagnostic error vary widely and little is known about the factors predicting error. Our objectives thus was to determine the rate of discrepancy between diagnoses at hospital admission and discharge in patients presenting through the emergency room, the discrepancies’ consequences, and factors predicting them. Methods Prospective observational clinical study combined with a survey in a University-affiliated tertiary care hospital. Patients’ hospital discharge diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis at hospital admittance through the emergency room and classified as similar or discrepant according to a predefined scheme by two independent expert raters. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the effect of diagnostic discrepancy on mortality and length of hospital stay and to determine whether characteristics of patients, diagnosing physicians, and context predicted diagnostic discrepancy. Results 755 consecutive patients (322 [42.7%] female; mean age 65.14 years) were included. The discharge diagnosis differed substantially from the admittance diagnosis in 12.3% of cases. Diagnostic discrepancy was associated with a longer hospital stay (mean 10.29 vs. 6.90 days; Cohen’s d 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.70; P = 0.002) and increased patient mortality (8 (8.60%) vs. 25(3.78%); OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.05 to 5.5 P = 0.038). A factor available at admittance that predicted diagnostic discrepancy was the diagnosing physician’s assessment that the patient presented atypically for the diagnosis assigned (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.33–6.96; P = 0.009). Conclusions Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant healthcare problem in patients admitted through the emergency room because they occur in every ninth patient and are associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Discrepancies are not readily predictable by fixed patient or physician characteristics; attention should focus on context. Trial registration https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e011585 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0629-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: SoftwareRole: Validation
                Role: InvestigationRole: Software
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                15 June 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 6
                : e0253316
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Medicine, Section of Internal Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
                [2 ] Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
                [3 ] Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
                Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, JAPAN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4617-129X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4466-1364
                Article
                PONE-D-20-32005
                10.1371/journal.pone.0253316
                8205140
                34129648
                35c8829a-bb59-4fc7-b7ca-2a1d5cd2036e
                © 2021 Fatima et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 October 2020
                : 2 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Pages: 12
                Funding
                This is a non-funded study. The authors did not receive any funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Diabetes Diagnosis and Management
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Facilities
                Hospitals
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Endocrinology
                Endocrine Disorders
                Diabetes Mellitus
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Metabolic Disorders
                Diabetes Mellitus
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Instructors
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Retrospective Studies
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article