Defining Diagnostic Error: A Scoping Review to Assess the Impact of the National Academies' Report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Standards for accurate and timely diagnosis are ill-defined. In 2015, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee published a landmark report, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care , and proposed a new definition of diagnostic error, "the failure to ( a ) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem(s) or ( b ) communicate that explanation to the patient." OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how researchers operationalize the NASEM's definition of diagnostic error with relevance to accuracy, timeliness, and/or communication in peer-reviewed published literature. METHODS: Using the Arskey and O'Malley's framework framework, we identified published literature from October 2015 to February 2021 using Medline and Google Scholar. We also conducted subject matter expert interviews with researchers. RESULTS: Of 34 studies identified, 16 were analyzed and abstracted to determine how diagnostic error was operationalized and measured. Studies were grouped by theme: epidemiology, patient focus, measurement/surveillance, and clinician focus. Nine studies indicated using the NASEM definition. Of those, 5 studies also operationalized with existing definitions proposed before the NASEM report. Four studies operationalized the components of the NASEM definition and did not cite existing definitions. Three studies operationalized error using existing definitions only. Subject matter experts indicated that the NASEM definition functions as foundation for researchers to conceptualize diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS: The NASEM report produced a common understanding of diagnostic error that includes accuracy, timeliness, and communication. In recent peer-reviewed literature, most researchers continue to use pre-NASEM report definitions to operationalize accuracy and timeliness. The report catalyzed the use of patient-centered concepts in the definition, resulting in emerging studies focused on examining errors related to communicating diagnosis to patients.

Screening for hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus at a community fair: a single-center experience.

Despite recommendations for screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), most individuals are still unaware of their infection status. The disparities in screening for HBV and HCV can be attributed to lack of awareness, language barriers, and difficulty in accessing healthcare. To address these issues, an exhibit booth was set up at an annual cultural festival to promote awareness about HBV and HCV and also provide free screening for a local Floridian community. Recruitment was conducted in various languages by physicians and nurses who specialize in hepatology. All materials associated with the screening process were sponsored by the Schiff Center for Liver Diseases, which is located at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida. In the first year of the screening initiative, 173 of 11,000 fair attendees were screened for HBV. Twenty-nine (17%) of those screened tested positive for antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), and only 1 individual tested positive for chronic HBV, with positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Screening for HCV and an extended patient questionnaire were added to the screening program in the second year of the initiative. A total 231 of 9,000 fair attendees volunteered to be screened for both HBV and HCV. Twenty-nine (13%) of these people tested positive for anti-HBc, and 3 tested positive for HBsAg. Only 1 person tested positive for anti-HCV, but this individual had undetectable HCV RNA levels. Our single-center experience illustrates that, despite efforts to improve access to screening, only 2-3% of attendees at a cultural fair embraced the screening efforts. Other strategies will be required to enhance participation in screening programs for viral hepatitis.

Prediction of sustained virological response in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C virus following combination pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin therapy using tissue hepatitis C virus reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing.

The optimal duration of therapy for pegylated interferon combined with ribavirin in recurrent Hepatitis C virus (HCV) following liver transplantation is not known. We wanted to determine if testing for HCV in liver tissue by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was superior in predicting sustained virological response (SVR) in comparison to standard HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) detection in the serum. All recipients received combination pegylated alpha-2b interferon (1.5 mcg/kg) and ribavirin (200-600 mg/d) therapy for at least 48 weeks of therapy and were found to have nondetectable HCV RNA by PCR serum testing at the end of therapy. Sustained virological response (SVR) was defined as nondetectable serum HCV RNA at 6 months post treatment withdrawal. Ten liver transplant recipients were included in the study; mean time from transplantation was 29.2 months. All had nondetectable serum HCV RNA by RT-PCR. In hepatic tissue 7/10 patients HCV RNA was found to be positive by RT-PCR while 3/10 had nondetectable HCV RNA in their liver by RT-PCR. SVR was attained in all 3/10 that were hepatic tissue HCV PCR negative after 12 months of combination therapy. In conclusion, direct detection of HCV RNA by RT-PCR of liver tissue appears to more effectively predict SVR following pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy than the conventional use of serum.