Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40774723›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open quality2025

Identifying diagnostic errors in the emergency department using trigger-based strategies.

Mahsa Khalili, Moein Enayati, Shrinath Patel, Todd Huschka, Daniel Cabrera, Sarah J Parker, Kalyan Pasupathy, Prashant Mahajan, Fernanda Bellolio

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mahsa KhaliliDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada mahsa.khalili@ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0510-2554
Moein EnayatiKern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Shrinath PatelKern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Todd HuschkaKern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Daniel CabreraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5891-0459
Sarah J ParkerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6007-5803
Kalyan PasupathyUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Prashant MahajanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4278-3560
Fernanda BellolioDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R18 HS026622
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceDiagnostic errors represent a major patient safety concern, with the potential to significantly impact patient outcomes. To address this, various trigger-based strategies have been developed to identify diagnostic errors, aiming to enhance clinical decision-making and improve patient safety.

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of three pre-established triggers (T) in the emergency department (ED) setting and assess their effectiveness in detecting diagnostic errors.

designConsecutive cohort, retrospective observational design.

settingAcademic ED with 80 000 annual visits.

participantsAdults and children presenting to a single ED in the USA between 1 May 2018 and 1 January 2020. INTERVENTION/OUTCOMES: Electronic health records (EHRs) were retrieved and categorised into trigger-positive and trigger-negative cases using the following criteria: T1-unscheduled returnvisits to the ED with admission within 7-10 days of theinitial visit; T2-care escalation from the inpatient unitto the intensive care unit (ICU) within 6, 12 or 24 hoursof ED admission; and T3-all deaths in the ED or within24 hours of ED admission, excluding palliative care. A random sample of trigger-positive cases was reviewed using the SaferDx tool to determine the presence or absence of a diagnostic error.

resultsA total of 5791 trigger-positive and 118262 trigger-negative cases were identified. Among trigger-positive cases, 4159 (72%) were associated with T1, 1415 (24%) with T2, and 217 (4%) with T3. A preliminary chart review of 462 trigger-positive and 251 trigger-negative cases showed most were error-negative (279 and 217, respectively). Detailed reviews found 32 diagnostic errors among 183 trigger-positive cases, yielding PPVs of 5.4% (T1), 8.9% (T2), and 6.9% (T3). No errors were found in 34 reviewed trigger-negative cases, resulting in a 100% NPV. Sepsis was the most common diagnosis among error-positive cases (n=11, 34.4%). Those with non-specific chief complaints like altered mental status or shortness of breath had higher diagnostic error risk. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: While previously proposed EHR-based triggers can identify some diagnostic errors, they are insufficient for detecting all cases. To improve error detection performance, we recommend exploring data-driven strategies, such as machine learning techniques, to more effectively identify underlying contributing factors to diagnostic errors and enhance detection accuracy in the ED.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsEmergency Service, HospitalAdultAgedChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesDiagnostic errorsElectronic Health RecordsEmergency department

Identifiers

PMID40774723
PMCPMC12336471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.