Defining Diagnostic Error: A Scoping Review to Assess the Impact of the National Academies' Report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care.

Giardina TD, Hunte H, Hill MA, Heimlich SL, Singh H, Smith KM. Defining Diagnostic Error: A Scoping Review to Assess the Impact of the National Academies' Report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Journal of Patient Safety. 2022 Dec 1; 18(8):770-778.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 17-127 – Measuring and Improving the Safety of Test Result Follow-Up

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Standards for accurate and timely diagnosis are ill-defined. In 2015, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee published a landmark report, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care , and proposed a new definition of diagnostic error, "the failure to ( a ) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem(s) or ( b ) communicate that explanation to the patient." OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how researchers operationalize the NASEM's definition of diagnostic error with relevance to accuracy, timeliness, and/or communication in peer-reviewed published literature. METHODS: Using the Arskey and O'Malley's framework framework, we identified published literature from October 2015 to February 2021 using Medline and Google Scholar. We also conducted subject matter expert interviews with researchers. RESULTS: Of 34 studies identified, 16 were analyzed and abstracted to determine how diagnostic error was operationalized and measured. Studies were grouped by theme: epidemiology, patient focus, measurement/surveillance, and clinician focus. Nine studies indicated using the NASEM definition. Of those, 5 studies also operationalized with existing definitions proposed before the NASEM report. Four studies operationalized the components of the NASEM definition and did not cite existing definitions. Three studies operationalized error using existing definitions only. Subject matter experts indicated that the NASEM definition functions as foundation for researchers to conceptualize diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS: The NASEM report produced a common understanding of diagnostic error that includes accuracy, timeliness, and communication. In recent peer-reviewed literature, most researchers continue to use pre-NASEM report definitions to operationalize accuracy and timeliness. The report catalyzed the use of patient-centered concepts in the definition, resulting in emerging studies focused on examining errors related to communicating diagnosis to patients.