QSHC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Margo, C E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Margo, C E
Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:416-420
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute for Healthcare Improvement


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A pilot study in ophthalmology of inter-rater reliability in classifying diagnostic errors: an underinvestigated area of medical error

C E Margo

Correspondence to:
C E Margo
Department of Ophthalmology, Watson Clinic, 1600 Lakeland Hills Blvd, Lakeland, FL 33805, USA; cmargo{at}watsonclinic.com Background: Misdiagnosis is the least studied form of medical error. Before effective strategies to reduce misdiagnosis can be developed, there needs to be a better understanding of the factors that lead to these errors.

Aim: To evaluate the applicability and reliability of three classification systems for misdiagnosis.

Design: Retrospective independent analysis of five cases by clinical experts.

Participants: Three ophthalmologists trained in ocular oncology who devote at least 75% of their practice to ocular oncology.

Main outcome measures: Percentage agreement in determining cause of misdiagnosis.

Results: Participants agreed a misdiagnosis occurred in all cases and the error was graded as serious 14 of 15 times (93%). Inter-rater agreement for root cause varied among the three classification systems from 47% to zero.

Conclusions: Although there was excellent agreement among clinical experts of what constitutes serious misdiagnosis under idealized conditions, there is not a reliable method for categorizing the primary or root cause for these errors. The origins of misdiagnosis are complex, often multifactorial, and more difficult to categorize than other types of medical error. Misdiagnosis is a professional and public healthcare challenge that will require novel strategies to enable it to be successfully studied.


Keywords: medical error; misdiagnosis; patient safety




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
T. K. Gandhi, A. Kachalia, E. J. Thomas, A. L. Puopolo, C. Yoon, T. A. Brennan, and D. M. Studdert
Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.
Ann Intern Med, October 3, 2006; 145(7): 488 - 496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Qual Health CareHome page
T. V. Perneger
A research agenda for patient safety
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, February 1, 2006; 18(1): 1 - 3.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Qual Saf Health CareHome page
K G Shojania, E C Burton, K M McDonald, and L Goldman
Overestimation of clinical diagnostic performance caused by low necropsy rates
Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 408 - 413.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2003 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.