Common contributing factors of diagnostic error:A retrospective analysis of 109 serious adverse event reports from Dutch hospitals

Introduction: Although diagnostic errors have gained renewed focus within the patient safety domain, measuring them remains a challenge. They are often measured using methods that lack information on decision-making processes given by involved physicians (eg, record reviews). The current study analyses serious adverse event (SAE) reports from Dutch hospitals to identify common contributing factors of diagnostic errors in hospital medicine. These reports are the results of thorough investigations by highly trained, independent hospital committees into the causes of SAEs. The reports include information from involved healthcare professionals and patients or family obtained through interviews. Methods:All 71 Dutch hospitals were invited to participate in this study. Participating hospitals were asked to send four diagnostic SAE reports of their hospital. Researchers applied the Safer Dx Instrument, a Generic Analysis Framework, the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy and the Eindhoven Classification Model (ECM) to analyse reports.Results: Thirty-one hospitals submitted 109 eligible reports. Diagnostic errors most often occurred in the diagnostic testing, assessment and follow-up phases according to the DEER taxonomy. The ECM showed human errors as the most common contributing factor, especially relating to communication of results, task planning and execution, and knowledge. Combining the most common DEER subcategories and the most common ECM classes showed that clinical reasoning errors resulted from failures in knowledge, and task planning and execution. Follow-up errors and errors with communication of test results resulted from failures in coordination and monitoring, often accompanied by usability issues in electronic health record design and missing protocols. Discussion: Diagnostic errors occurred in every hospital type, in different specialties and with different care teams. While clinical reasoning errors remain a common problem, often caused by knowledge and skill gaps, other frequent errors in communication of test results and follow-up require different improvement measures (eg, improving technological systems).</p

Residual confounding after adjustment for age: a minor issue in breast cancer screening effectiveness

Residual confounding, after adjustment for age, is the major criticism of observational studies on breast cancer screening effectiveness. We developed realistic scenarios for the prevalence and strength of risk factors on screened and not screened groups, and explored the impact of residual confounding bias. Our results demonstrate that residual confounding bias is a minor issue in screening programme evaluations

Utility of Supplemental Training to Improve Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening : A Literature Review

Purpose: The authors evaluate whether supplemental training for radiologists improves their breast screening performance and how this is measured. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed on August 3, 2017. Articles were included if they described supplemental training for radiologists reading mammograms to improve their breast screening performance and at least one outcome measure was reported. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Results: Of 2,199 identified articles, 18 were included, of which 17 showed improvement on at least one of the outcome measures, for at least one training activity or subgroup. Two measurement approaches were found. For the first approach, measuring performance on test sets, sensitivity, and specificity were the most reported outcomes (8 of 11 studies). Recall rate is the most reported outcome (6 of 7 studies) for the second approach, which measures performance in actual screening practice. The studies were mainly of moderate quality (Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score 11.7 ± 1.7), caused by small sample sizes and the lack of a control group. Conclusions: Supplemental training helps radiologists improve their screening performance, despite the mainly moderate quality of the studies. There is a need for better designed studies. Future studies should focus on performance in actual screening practice and should look for methods to isolate the training effect. If test sets are used, focus should be on knowledge about correlation between performance on test sets and actual screening practice

Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes

Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the results of all audits performed in the past and to assess their value in the quality assurance of the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. The audit team of the Dutch Reference Centre for Screening (LRCB) conducts triennial audits of all 17 reading units. During audits, screening outcomes like recall rates and detection rates are assessed and a radiological review is performed. This study investigates and compares the results of four audit series: 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2003-2007 and 2010-2013. The analysis shows increased recall rates (from 0.66 %, 1.07 %, 1.22 % to 1.58 %), increased detection rates (from 3.3, 4.5, 4.8 to 5.4 per 1000) and increased sensitivity (from 64.5 %, 68.7 %, 70.5 % to 71.6 %), over the four audit series. The percentage of 'missed cancers' among interval cancers and advanced screen-detected cancers did not change (p = 0.4). Our audits not only provide an opportunity for assessing screening outcomes, but also provide moments of self-reflection with peers. For radiologists, an accurate understanding of their performance is essential to identify points of improvement. We therefore recommend a radiological review of screening examinations and immediate feedback as part of an audit. aEuro cent Radiological review and immediate feedback are recommended as part of an audit. aEuro cent For breast screening radiologists, audits provide moments of self-reflection with peers. aEuro cent Radiological review of screening examinations provides insights in recall behaviour. aEuro cent Accurate understanding of radiologists' performance is essential to identify points of improvement

Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality

To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. The study was conducted in a Dutch mammographic screening unit (288 women). To compare both paddles one additional image with RP was made, consisting of either a mediolateral-oblique (MLO) or craniocaudal-view (CC). Pain experience was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Projected breast area was estimated using computer software. Radiation dose was estimated using the model by Dance. Image quality was reviewed by three radiologists and three radiographers. There was no difference in pain experience between both paddles (mean difference NRS: 0.08 ± 0.08, p = 0.32). Mean radiation dose was 4.5 % lower with FP (0.09 ± 0.01 p = 0.00). On MLO-images, the projected breast area was 0.79 % larger with FP. Paired evaluation of image quality indicated that FP removed fibroglandular tissue from the image area and reduced contrast in the clinically relevant retroglandular area at chest wall side. Although FP performed slightly better in the projected breast area, it moved breast tissue from the image area at chest wall side. RP showed better contrast, especially in the retroglandular area. We therefore recommend the use of RP for standard MLO and CC view

Breast cancer screening halves the risk of breast cancer death: a case-referent study

Large-scale epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of mammographic screening programs, however the benefits are still subject to debate. We estimated the effect of the Dutch screening program on breast cancer mortality. In a large multi-region case-referent study, we identified all breast cancer deaths in 2004 and 2005 in women aged 50-75 who had been invited for screening (cases). Cases were individually matched to referents from the population invited to screening. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of breast cancer death according to individual screening history. The OR was adjusted for self-selection bias using regional correction factors for the difference in baseline risk for breast cancer death between screened and unscreened women. A total of 1233 cases and 2090 referents were included in this study. We found a 58% reduction in breast cancer mortality in screened versus unscreened women (adjusted OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). Screening, i.e. early detection and treatment, has resulted in a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality, indicating that the Dutch breast cancer screening program is highly effectiv