Identification of diagnostic discrepancies as a quality assurance measure in emergency medicine - a validation study.

Background Diagnostic errors are a major care health concern but remain difficult to study because their identification often requires resource-intensive chart reviews. We aimed to validate a previously proposed automated method for detecting discrepancies between an initial and a later, more definitive diagnosis as a screening tool for potential diagnostic errors in a large, prospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients. Methods This secondary analysis included 1,204 patients enrolled in the DDxBRO randomized trial, which evaluated the effect of a diagnostic decision support tool on diagnostic quality in four Swiss emergency departments. For each patient, the ED diagnosis was extracted from the ED discharge letter, and the follow-up diagnosis at 14 days was obtained from hospital discharge letters, or general practitioner notes. All diagnoses were coded using ICD-10 and manually classified for discrepancies by two blinded ED physicians according to a predefined scheme. The automated method calculated the "similarity" between ICD-10 codes for ED and follow-up diagnoses. Discriminative performance of this method to distinguish between cases with and without diagnostic error was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were assessed across multiple cutoffs. Results The automated method showed high and consistent discriminative performance across all algorithms tested, with areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.94 to 0.95. Using the most sensitive cutoff in the simplest algorithm, all true discrepancies were detected, but 162 cases (15%) were incorrectly flagged as discrepant. Conclusion The automated method demonstrated high accuracy and shows promise as a practical screening tool to prioritize cases for resource-intensive chart review. Trial Registration NCT05346523.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Published
2026-02-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48620/94687
Primary Topic
Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Identification of diagnostic discrepancies as a quality assurance measure in emergency medicine - a validation study.

Wolf E. Hautz, Stefanie C. Hautz, Nadine Werthmüller, Fabian Kölbener et al.
Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
article

Identification of diagnostic discrepancies as a quality assurance measure in emergency medicine - a validation study.

Wolf E. Hautz, Stefanie C. Hautz, Nadine Werthmüller, Fabian Kölbener, Thimo Marcin, Laura Zwaan, Aristomenis Exadaktylos, Alexander Schuster, Martin Müller
article en

Abstract

Background Diagnostic errors are a major care health concern but remain difficult to study because their identification often requires resource-intensive chart reviews. We aimed to validate a previously proposed automated method for detecting discrepancies between an initial and a later, more definitive diagnosis as a screening tool for potential diagnostic errors in a large, prospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients. Methods This secondary analysis included 1,204 patients enrolled in the DDxBRO randomized trial, which evaluated the effect of a diagnostic decision support tool on diagnostic quality in four Swiss emergency departments. For each patient, the ED diagnosis was extracted from the ED discharge letter, and the follow-up diagnosis at 14 days was obtained from hospital discharge letters, or general practitioner notes. All diagnoses were coded using ICD-10 and manually classified for discrepancies by two blinded ED physicians according to a predefined scheme. The automated method calculated the "similarity" between ICD-10 codes for ED and follow-up diagnoses. Discriminative performance of this method to distinguish between cases with and without diagnostic error was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were assessed across multiple cutoffs. Results The automated method showed high and consistent discriminative performance across all algorithms tested, with areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.94 to 0.95. Using the most sensitive cutoff in the simplest algorithm, all true discrepancies were detected, but 162 cases (15%) were incorrectly flagged as discrepant. Conclusion The automated method demonstrated high accuracy and shows promise as a practical screening tool to prioritize cases for resource-intensive chart review. Trial Registration NCT05346523.

Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.