ArticleBMJ quality & safety2021
Incidence, origins and avoidable harm of missed opportunities in diagnosis: longitudinal patient record review in 21 English general practices.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From Assessment to Impact: How Workplace Health Screening Informs Staff Wellbeing in a University Setting.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- GenAI and clinical decision making in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Article
- Using generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a narrative review and proposed agenda for implementation.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Review
- Two decades of diagnostic safety research: advances, challenges, and next steps.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Missed opportunities for earlier cancer diagnosis within specific pathways to emergency presentation.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Rethinking self-identification in neurodivergent communities: barriers, harms, and the need for change.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Changes in Diagnostic Accuracy of a Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an AI-Based Symptom Checker: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- A taxonomy of early diagnosis research to guide study design and funding prioritisation.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Mapping opportunities for the earlier diagnosis of psoriasis in primary care settings in the UK: results from two matched case-control studies.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Incidence of Diagnostic Errors Among Unexpectedly Hospitalized Patients Using an Automated Medical History-Taking System With a Differential Diagnosis Generator: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Contributors to Diagnostic Error or Delay in the Acute Care Setting: A Survey of Clinical Stakeholders.Health services insights · 2022Article
- [Diagnostic error and overdiagnosis in Primary Care. Proposals for the improvement of clinical practice family medicine].Atencion primaria · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic error is a global patient safety priority.
objectivesTo estimate the incidence, origins and avoidable harm of diagnostic errors in English general practice. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available (missed diagnostic opportunities, MDOs).
methodRetrospective medical record reviews identified MDOs in 21 general practices. In each practice, two trained general practitioner reviewers independently conducted case note reviews on 100 randomly selected adult consultations performed during 2013-2014. Consultations where either reviewer identified an MDO were jointly reviewed.
resultsAcross 2057 unique consultations, reviewers agreed that an MDO was possible, likely or certain in 89 cases or 4.3% (95% CI 3.6% to 5.2%) of reviewed consultations. Inter-reviewer agreement was higher than most comparable studies (Fleiss' kappa=0.63). Sixty-four MDOs (72%) had two or more contributing process breakdowns. Breakdowns involved problems in the patient-practitioner encounter such as history taking, examination or ordering tests (main or secondary factor in 61 (68%) cases), performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests (31; 35%) and follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (43; 48%). 37% of MDOs were rated as resulting in moderate to severe avoidable patient harm.
conclusionsAlthough MDOs occurred in fewer than 5% of the investigated consultations, the high numbers of primary care contacts nationally suggest that several million patients are potentially at risk of avoidable harm from MDOs each year. Causes of MDOs were frequently multifactorial, suggesting the need for development and evaluation of multipronged interventions, along with policy changes to support them.
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.