MedicineWorld.Org
Your gateway to the world of medicine
Home
News
Cancer News
About Us
Cancer
Health Professionals
Patients and public
Contact Us
Disclaimer

Medicineworld.org: Will you be misdiagnosed?

Back to society news Blogs list Cancer blog  


Subscribe To Society News RSS Feed  RSS content feed What is RSS feed?

Will you be misdiagnosed?




New York, April 28, 2008 How frequently do doctors misdiagnose patients? While research has demonstrated that the great majority of medical diagnoses are correct, the answer is probably higher than patients expect and certainly higher than doctors realize. In a Supplement to the recent issue of The American Journal of Medicine, a collection of articles and commentaries sheds light on the causes underlying misdiagnoses and demonstrates a nontrivial rate of diagnostic error that ranges from <5% in the perceptual specialties (pathology, radiology, dermatology) up to 10% to 15% in a number of other fields.



Will you be misdiagnosed?

The sensitive issue of diagnostic error is rarely discussed and has been understudied. The papers in this volume confirm the extent of diagnostic errors and suggest improvement will best come by developing systems to provide physicians with better feedback on their own errors.

Guest Editors Mark L. Graber, MD, FACP (Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Northport, NY and Department of Medicine, SUNY Stony Book) and Eta S. Berner, EdD (School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham) oversaw the development and compilation of these papers. Drs. Berner and Graber conducted an extensive literature review concerning teaching, learning, reasoning and decision making as they relate to diagnostic error and overconfidence and developed a framework for strategies to address the problem.

They write, Given that physicians overall are highly dedicated and well-intentioned, we think that if they were more aware of these factors and their own predisposition to error, they would adopt behaviors and attitudes that would help decrease the likelihood of diagnostic error. Being confident even when in error is an inherent human trait, and physicians are no exception. The fact that most of their diagnoses are correct, and that effective feedback regarding their errors is lacking, reinforces this inclination. When directly questioned, a number of clinicians find it inconceivable that their own error rate could be as high as the literature demonstrates. They acknowledge that diagnostic error exists, but believe the rate is very low, and that any errors are made by others who are less skillful or less careful. This reflects both overconfidence and complacency. In medicine, the challenge is to reduce the complacency and overconfidence that leads to failure to recognize when ones diagnosis is incorrect.

Dr. Pat Croskerry and Dr. Geoff Norman review two modes of clinical reasoning to understand the processes underlying overconfidence. Ms. Beth Crandall and Dr. Robert L. Wears highlight gaps in knowledge about the nature of diagnostic problems, emphasizing the limitations of applying static models to the messy world of clinical practice.

In any endeavor, "Learning and feedback are inseparable," as per Dr. Gordon L. Schiff, who discusses the numerous barriers to adequate feedback and follow-up in the real world of clinical practice. Taking another approach, Dr. Jenny W. Rudolph and Dr. J. Bradley Morrison provide an expanded model of the fundamental feedback processes involved in diagnostic problem solving, highlighting particular leverage points for avoiding error. In the final commentary, Dr. Graber identifies stakeholders interested in medical diagnosis and provides recommendations to help each reduce diagnostic error.

These papers also emphasize a second theme. Medical practitioners really do not use systems designed to aid their diagnostic decision making. From early systems in the 1980s to more recent efforts, physicians have underutilized decision-support systems and misdiagnosis rates remain high.

Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, Director of the National Library of Medicine, writes in an introduction to the Supplement, I sympathize with and respectfully salute these present efforts to study diagnostic decision making and to remedy its weaknessesI applaud particularly the suggestions to systematize the incorporation of the downstream experiences and participation of the patients in all efforts to improve the diagnostic process.

In my view, diagnostic error will be reduced only if physicians have a more realistic understanding of the amount of diagnostic errors they PERSONALLY make, summarizes Paul Mongerson, who created a foundation to promote computer-based and other strategies to reduce diagnostic errors. I think that the accuracy of diagnosis can be best improved by informing physicians of the extent of their own (not others) errors and urging them to personally take steps to reduce their own errors.


Posted by: Janet    Source




Did you know?
New York, April 28, 2008 How frequently do doctors misdiagnose patients? While research has demonstrated that the great majority of medical diagnoses are correct, the answer is probably higher than patients expect and certainly higher than doctors realize. In a Supplement to the recent issue of The American Journal of Medicine, a collection of articles and commentaries sheds light on the causes underlying misdiagnoses and demonstrates a nontrivial rate of diagnostic error that ranges from <5% in the perceptual specialties (pathology, radiology, dermatology) up to 10% to 15% in a number of other fields.

Medicineworld.org: Will you be misdiagnosed?

Asthma| Hypertension| Medicine Main| Diab french| Diabetes drug info| DruginfoFrench| Type2 diabetes| Create a dust free bedroom| Allergy statistics| Cancer terms| History of cancer| Imaging techniques| Cancer Main| Bladder cancer news| Cervix cancer news| Colon cancer news| Esophageal cancer news| Gastric cancer news| Health news| Lung cancer news| Breast cancer news| Ovarian cancer news| Cancer news|

Copyright statement
The contents of this web page are protected. Legal action may follow for reproduction of materials without permission.