MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413037049 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003389

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

2025· article· en· W4413037049 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Khalili, Moein Enayati, Shrinath Patel, Todd R. Huschka, Daniel Cabrera, Sarah J. Parker, Kalyan S. Pasupathy, Prashant Mahajan, Fernanda Bellolio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Quality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyObservational studyIntensive care unitMedical emergencyPatient safetyHealth careIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Diagnostic 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. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of three pre-established triggers (T) in the emergency department (ED) setting and assess their effectiveness in detecting diagnostic errors. DESIGN: Consecutive cohort, retrospective observational design. SETTING: Academic ED with 80 000 annual visits. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 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. RESULTS: A 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open QualitySame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207