Checklist of cognitive contributions to diagnostic errors: a tool for clinician-educators

Background: Experienced clinician educators readily identify trainees with diagnostic reasoning difficulties but often lack training to diagnose and remediate errors. Taxonomies of cognitive causes of diagnostic errors can inform remediation, but clinician educators need simple tools to identify, record, report and provide feedback on these errors. A checklist may help achieve these goals. Objectives: To characterise the cognitive contributions to diagnostic errors (CCDEs), trainees make in patient encounters, with the view to develop training and remediation programmes for medical residents preparing for specialist examinations. Secondly, to determine examiners’ perceptions of a checklist in order to document and provide feedback on CCDEs to unsuccessful candidates and trainees making diagnostic errors in examinations, on ward rounds and during bedside teaching activities. Methods: Thirty examiners used a 17-item checklist to identify and record CCDEs made by medical residents failing patient encounters in a national specialist examination. A survey was used to explore examiners perceptions of the checklist to document and provide feedback on these errors. Results: Ninety-eight of 264 patient encounters were failed (37%). Ninety-four completed checklists documented 691 CCDEs (median of 7 per encounter). Cardiac (28.7%) and neurology patients (18.1%) constituted approximately half of the failed encounters. By category: data synthesis was more problematic than data gathering, faulty knowledge or data interpretation (35.2% vs. 25.8% vs. 21.9% vs. 17.1%); χ2=48.2, (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). The 'top five’ individual CCDEs were failure to elicit history and/or examination findings; poor knowledge of clinical features (illness scripts); case synthesis (putting the case together) and misinterpretation of clinical findings. History and physical examination-related errors accounted for 60% of the 'top 5’ CCDEs, Examination-related errors were more common than history-related errors (p<0.0001). The survey of the checklist was completed by all (30) examiners. Seventy-three percent finished the checklist in less than five minutes, describing it as comprehensive and easy to use. The majority (96.7%) thought the checklist could be a better way of providing structured feedback to unsuccessful candidates. Most examiners (93.3%) considered it a useful way of guiding bedside teaching for residents preparing for specialist examinations, and 76.7% thought it could improve feedback on CCDEs to unsuccessful candidates and guide remediation and training. Conclusion: A 17-item checklist identified three priority CCDEs which require focussed remediation and training in South African medical residency programmes: improving clinical skills, developing adequate illness scripts and 'putting a case together’. This does not require extensive pedagogic expertise but rather use of a simple tool to provide customised feedback, remediation and faculty support. We showed that the simple checklist used in this study helped clinician-educators/examiners without pedagogic expertise to diagnose and record CCDEs contributing to poor performance in high stakes examinations. Examiners endorsed the use of the checklist and its potential to improve feedback and training addressing CCDEs made by trainees at the bedside

Prevalence and Determinants of Vitamin D Deficiency in 1825 Cape Town Primary Schoolchildren: A Cross-Sectional Study

Vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D[25(OH)D] &lt;50 nmol/L) is common among adults in Cape Town, South Africa, but studies investigating vitamin D status of children in this setting are lacking. We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence and determinants of vitamin D deficiency in 1825 Cape Town schoolchildren aged 6&ndash;11 years. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was 7.6% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 6.5% to 8.9%). Determinants of vitamin D deficiency included month of sampling (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for July&ndash;September vs. January&ndash;March 10.69, 95% CI 5.02 to 22.77; aOR for October&ndash;December vs. January&ndash;March 6.73, 95% CI 2.82 to 16.08), older age (aOR 1.25 per increasing year, 95% CI: 1.01&ndash;1.53) and higher body mass index (BMI; aOR 1.24 per unit increase in BMI-for-age Z-score, 95% CI: 1.03&ndash;1.49). In a subset of 370 participants in whom parathyroid hormone (PTH) concentrations were measured; these were inversely related to serum 25(OH)D concentrations (p &lt; 0.001). However, no association between participants with hyperparathyroidism (PTH &gt;6.9 pmol/L) and vitamin D deficiency was seen (p = 0.42). In conclusion, we report that season is the major determinant of vitamin D status among Cape Town primary schoolchildren, with prevalence of vitamin D deficiency ranging from 1.4% in January&ndash;March to 22.8% in July&ndash;September

Risk factors for COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality in a high HIV and tuberculosis prevalence setting in South Africa : a cohort study

BACKGROUND : The interaction between COVID-19, non-communicable diseases, and chronic infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis is unclear, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries in Africa. South Africa has a national HIV prevalence of 19% among people aged 15–49 years and a tuberculosis prevalence of 0·7% in people of all ages. Using a nationally representative hospital surveillance system in South Africa, we aimed to investigate the factors associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19. METHODS : In this cohort study, we used data submitted to DATCOV, a national active hospital surveillance system for COVID-19 hospital admissions, for patients admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 5, 2020, and March 27, 2021. Age, sex, race or ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, chronic cardiac disease, chronic pulmonary disease and asthma, chronic renal disease, malignancy in the past 5 years, HIV, and past and current tuberculosis) were considered as risk factors for COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality. COVID-19 in-hospital mortality, the main outcome, was defined as a death related to COVID-19 that occurred during the hospital stay and excluded deaths that occurred because of other causes or after discharge from hospital; therefore, only patients with a known in-hospital outcome (died or discharged alive) were included. Chained equation multiple imputation was used to account for missing data and random-effects multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the role of HIV status and underlying comorbidities on COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. FINDINGS : Among the 219 265 individuals admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and known in-hospital outcome data, 51 037 (23·3%) died. Most commonly observed comorbidities among individuals with available data were hypertension in 61 098 (37·4%) of 163 350, diabetes in 43 885 (27·4%) of 159 932, and HIV in 13 793 (9·1%) of 151 779. Tuberculosis was reported in 5282 (3·6%) of 146 381 individuals. Increasing age was the strongest predictor of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. Other factors associated were HIV infection (adjusted odds ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·27–1·43), past tuberculosis (1·26, 1·15–1·38), current tuberculosis (1·42, 1·22–1·64), and both past and current tuberculosis (1·48, 1·32–1·67) compared with never tuberculosis, as well as other described risk factors for COVID-19, such as male sex; non-White race; underlying hypertension, diabetes, chronic cardiac disease, chronic renal disease, and malignancy in the past 5 years; and treatment in the public health sector. After adjusting for other factors, people with HIV not on antiretroviral therapy (ART; adjusted odds ratio 1·45, 95% CI 1·22–1·72) were more likely to die in hospital than were people with HIV on ART. Among people with HIV, the prevalence of other comorbidities was 29·2% compared with 30·8% among HIV-uninfected individuals. Increasing number of comorbidities was associated with increased COVID-19 in-hospital mortality risk in both people with HIV and HIV-uninfected individuals. INTERPRETATION : Individuals identified as being at high risk of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality (older individuals and those with chronic comorbidities and people with HIV, particularly those not on ART) would benefit from COVID-19 prevention programmes such as vaccine prioritisation as well as early referral and treatment.DATCOV, as a national surveillance system, is funded by the South African National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) and the South African National Government.http://www.thelancet.com/hivam2022School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Risk factors for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) death in a population cohort study from the Western Cape province, South Africa

Risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) death in sub-Saharan Africa and the effects of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes are unknown. We conducted a population cohort study using linked data from adults attending public-sector health facilities in the Western Cape, South Africa. We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, location, and comorbidities, to examine the associations between HIV, tuberculosis, and COVID-19 death from 1 March to 9 June 2020 among (1) public-sector “active patients” (≥1 visit in the 3 years before March 2020); (2) laboratory-diagnosed COVID-19 cases; and (3) hospitalized COVID-19 cases. We calculated the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) for COVID-19, comparing adults living with and without HIV using modeled population estimates.Among 3 460 932 patients (16% living with HIV), 22 308 were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 625 died. COVID19 death was associated with male sex, increasing age, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. HIV was associated with COVID-19 mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70–2.70), with similar risks across strata of viral loads and immunosuppression. Current and previous diagnoses of tuberculosis were associated with COVID-19 death (aHR, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.81–4.04] and 1.51 [95% CI, 1.18–1.93], respectively). The SMR for COVID-19 death associated with HIV was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.96–2.86); population attributable fraction 8.5% (95% CI, 6.1–11.1)

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Reporting completeness of nutrition and diet-related randomised controlled trials protocols

Background and aims: There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols. Methods: We conducted a meta-research study of 200 nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols published in 2019 and 2021 (aiming to consider periods before and after the start of the COVID pandemic). Data extraction included bibliometric information, general study characteristics, compliance with 122 questions corresponding to items and subitems in the SPIRIT and TIDieR checklists combined, and mention to these reporting guidelines in the publications. We calculated the proportion of protocols reporting each item and the frequency of items reported for each protocol. We investigated associations between selected publication aspects and reporting completeness using linear regression analysis. Results: The majority of protocols included adults and elderly as their study population (n = 73; 36.5%), supplementation as intervention (n = 96; 48.0%), placebo as comparator (n = 89; 44.5%), and evaluated clinical status as the outcome (n = 80; 40.0%). Most protocols described a parallel RCT (n = 188; 94.0%) with a superiority framework (n = 141; 70.5%). Overall reporting completeness was 52.0% (SD = 10.8%). Adherence to SPIRIT items ranged from 0% (n = 0) (data collection methods) to 98.5% (n = 197) (eligibility criteria). Adherence to TIDieR items ranged from 5.5% (n = 11) (materials used in the intervention) to 98.5% (n = 197) (description of the intervention). The multivariable regression analysis suggests that a higher number of authors [β = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28–0.78)], most recent published protocols [β = 3.19 (95%CI: 0.24–6.14)], request of reporting guideline checklist during the submission process by the journal [β = 6.50 (95%CI: 2.56–10.43)] and mention of SPIRIT by the authors [β = 5.15 (95%CI: 2.44–7.86)] are related to higher reporting completeness scores. Conclusions: Reporting completeness in a random sample of 200 diet or nutrition-related RCT protocols was low. Number of authors, year of publication, self-reported adherence to SPIRIT, and journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines seem to be positively associated with reporting completeness in nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.</p