Search the hub

This report commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality aims to identify major themes related to the current state of diagnostic safety and highlight key gaps in knowledge. Through a rapid narrative review methodology to evaluate multiple resources in the literature and interviews with experts, it presents several findings that have implications for future resource investments to reduce harm from diagnostic errors. The report looks at the following key themes: Incidence and Contributing Factors Measurement: Data and Methods Cognitive Processes Culture, Workflow, and Work System Issues Disparities Health Information Technology Patients and Families Testing Interventions Implementation

Kerri Mothersole was a 44 year old woman who had a past medical history of asthma, labyrinthitis, depression and back pain. In May 2020 she was seen with symptoms of possible early menopause and blood tests requested. In October 2020 she was noted to be suffering from tiredness and had irregular periods and again blood tests were requested. Blood tests taken in January 2021 noted a low haemoglobin and ferritin so iron was prescribed as well as follow up in two months. In March 2021 she complained of having per vaginal bleeding for six weeks and she was referred for an ultrasound. Due to her underlying ill health, she had difficulty in attending appointments and missed a number of different appointments. She was seen in the surgery on 21 June 2021 by her General Practitioner who noted abdominal tenderness and weight loss and he again referred her for an ultrasound. An ultrasound was undertaken by a private firm HEM Clinical Ultrasound on 28 June 2021 but the report was never sent to her General Practitioner. A second ultrasound on the 1 July 2021suggested a diagnosis of adenomyosis but noting that serious pathology could not be ruled out. Only the second report was sent to the General Practitioner which led to a routine gynaecology referral, she had however already been referred to the colorectal team on the urgent two week wait pathway. Had the earlier scan report been seen this would have led to an urgent referral to gynaecology. There were a number of missed appointments and a colonoscopy took place on 20 October 2021. The procedure was negative but the endoscopist thought he could feel something in the pelvis and a CT scan was arranged. The CT scan on 28 October 2021 demonstrated a large pelvic mass and she was referred to the gynaecology team in early December and a multidisciplinary team meeting discussion on 17 December 2021 led to a request for an MRI scan. Appointments were made for 31 December 2021, 25 January 2022 and again in February but not attended and she eventually underwent an MRI on 1 May 2022 which revealed a large mass. She was again discussed at the multidisciplinary team meeting on 6 May 2022 and referred to the gynae-oncology surgeons at Maidstone hospital. She was seen on 1 June 2022 and booked for surgery on 27 June 2022. She was, however, far too unwell for surgery on 27 June 2022 and further investigations revealed brain metastases. She was admitted to hospital and treated with steroids and referred to the Oncologists as surgery was deemed no longer appropriate. She was prescribed hormone treatment but she was, by now, too unwell to receive even palliative radiotherapy. She was taken to Medway Maritime hospital on 19 August 2022 and was struggling as she had been so unwell at home. Whilst plans were being made to provide some care at home she remained overnight but sadly died on 20 August 2022 as she was so unwell she could not return home.

Diagnostic errors are associated with patient harm and suboptimal outcomes. However, despite efforts to advance definition, measurement and interventions for diagnostic error, diagnosis in mental health is not well represented in this ongoing work. The authors of this article, published in BMJ Safety & Quality, summarise the current state of research on diagnostic errors in mental health and identify opportunities to align future research with the emerging science of diagnostic safety.

Despite growing awareness of diagnostic error, most healthcare systems do not track or record diagnostic quality, and many diagnostic safety events are not recognised. Without methods to identify, measure, investigate and analyse events, healthcare organisations cannot understand causes of diagnostic errors, identify contributing factors or create solutions. One of the best ways to collect information about diagnostic errors is through self-reporting by patients and healthcare professionals. This issue brief from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality looks at how to foster psychological safety and organisational safety culture in order to reduce harm from diagnostic error. 

In this blog, Kristy Widdicombe-Dutch shares her decades-long experience of harmful healthcare that has left her with a complete loss of trust in the system. She describes how, starting in her 20s, she has experienced disbelief, gaslighting and poor care in relation to her vascular issues, which has left her with long-term physical harm and psychological trauma.

It’s well known that diagnosis at an early stage of cancer dramatically increases chances of survival. Current NHS policy is focused on diagnosing cancer at an earlier stage and improving the speed with which patients receive a definitive diagnosis. This article from the Nuffield Trust and The Health Foundation presents graphical data illustrating that the NHS is seriously off course in achieving these aims. It examines the reasons for delays to diagnosis including difficulties patients face in getting their concerns and symptoms taken seriously, the role of deprivation in increasing diagnostic inequalities and pressures due to increasing numbers of referrals. It also looks at the role screening has to play in achieving earlier diagnosis and highlights issues with patients understanding the information they are given.

This article tells the story of 61 year-old Susannah Constantine who was diagnosed with a rare neurological condition after her MRI was not looked at by her GP surgery for over a year. Susannah decided to have a private MRI when doctors couldn't diagnose why she’d been suffering from tinnitus and pins and needles in the fingers of her left hand. The results were sent to her GP, and Susannah heard no more, so struggled on for another year—she gradually became weaker and her muscles atrophied. She called her GP surgery to check if the MRI held any clues and learnt no one there had ever looked at the results—they had just been sat there for a year. She was told she needed to see a neurosurgeon immediately and was diagnosed with arteriovenous malformation (AVM), a rare neurological condition that disrupts the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain. If not spotted and treated in good time there is a one in three chance of suffering a brain haemorrhage, paralysis or stroke.

This report is a continuation of the landmark Institute of Medicine reports To Err Is Human (2000) and Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001). It finds that diagnosis, and in particular the occurrence of diagnostic errors, has been largely unappreciated in efforts to improve the quality and safety of healthcare. Without a dedicated focus on improving diagnosis, diagnostic errors will likely worsen as the delivery of health care and the diagnostic process continue to increase in complexity. Just as the diagnostic process is a collaborative activity, improving diagnosis will require collaboration and a widespread commitment to change among health care professionals, healthcare organisations, patients and their families, researchers and policy makers. The report's recommendations contribute to the growing momentum for change in this crucial area of healthcare quality and safety.

Diagnostic errors cause substantial preventable harms worldwide, but rigorous estimates for total burden are lacking. Newman-Toker and colleague previously estimated diagnostic error and serious harm rates for key dangerous diseases in major disease categories and validated plausible ranges using clinical experts. In this study they estimated the annual US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms (permanent morbidity, mortality) by combining prior results with rigorous estimates of disease incidence. They found that  an estimated 795 000 Americans become permanently disabled or die annually across care settings because dangerous diseases are misdiagnosed. Just 15 diseases account for about half of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined.

This research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine describes a multicentre retrospective cohort study that investigated associations between stigmatising language, errors in the diagnostic process and demographics for hospitalised patients. The study found that stigmatising language in patient documentation was associated with diagnostic error and multiple diagnostic process errors. The prevalence of stigmatising language was higher in documentation relating to Black patients and patients with housing instability. The authors argue that this may be indicative of clinician biases that interfere with data gathering, communication and clinical reasoning. They call for further research to explore the mechanisms behind this and to understand how clinician use of stigmatising language can be reduced.