ArticleCardiology in the young2018
Diagnostic errors in paediatric cardiac intensive care.
Article in Cardiology in the young, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Characteristics of Diagnostic Error in Pediatric Critical Care: A Multicenter Study.Critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Enhancing Diagnosis Through Technology: Decision Support, Artificial Intelligence, and Beyond.Critical care clinics · 2022Review
- A Research Agenda for Diagnostic Excellence in Critical Care Medicine.Critical care clinics · 2022Review
- Diagnostic error in the pediatric hospital: a narrative review.Hospital practice (1995) · 2021Review
- Factors Associated With Diagnostic Error on Admission to a PICU: A Pilot Study.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
IntroductionDiagnostic errors cause significant patient harm and increase costs. Data characterising such errors in the paediatric cardiac intensive care population are limited. We sought to understand the perceived frequency and types of diagnostic errors in the paediatric cardiac ICU.
methodsPaediatric cardiac ICU practitioners including attending and trainee physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses at three North American tertiary cardiac centres were surveyed between October 2014 and January 2015.
resultsThe response rate was 46% (N=200). Most respondents (81%) perceived that diagnostic errors harm patients more than five times per year. More than half (65%) reported that errors permanently harm patients, and up to 18% perceived that diagnostic errors contributed to death or severe permanent harm more than five times per year. Medication side effects and psychiatric conditions were thought to be most commonly misdiagnosed. Physician groups also ranked pulmonary overcirculation and viral illness to be commonly misdiagnosed as bacterial illness. Inadequate care coordination, data assessment, and high clinician workload were cited as contributory factors. Delayed diagnostic studies and interventions related to the severity of the patient's condition were thought to be the most commonly reported process breakdowns. All surveyed groups ranked improving teamwork and feedback pathways as strategies to explore for preventing future diagnostic errors.
conclusionsPaediatric cardiac intensive care practitioners perceive that diagnostic errors causing permanent harm are common and associated more with systematic and process breakdowns than with cognitive limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.