19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors Associated With Potentially Missed Diagnosis of Appendicitis in the Emergency Department

      research-article
      , MD, MPH, MBA 1 , , , MS, MA 2 , , PhD 1 , , MD, MPH 3 , 4 , , PhD 4 , , MD, MS 5 , , MD, MS, MBA 6 , , MA 2
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What factors are associated with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis in the emergency department among adults and children?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 123 711 patients diagnosed with appendicitis, insurance claims data indicated that appendicitis was potentially missed in 6.0% of adults and 4.4% of children during the initial emergency department visit. Factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis included female sex, the coexistence of abdominal pain and constipation, and the presence of comorbidities.

          Meaning

          Population-based estimates of the rates of potentially missed appendicitis reveal opportunities for improvement and identify factors that may alert clinicians and mitigate the risk of missed diagnosis.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Appendicitis may be missed during initial emergency department (ED) presentation.

          Objective

          To compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis (ie, patients with symptoms associated with appendicitis, including abdominal pain, constipation, nausea and/or vomiting, fever, and diarrhea diagnosed within 1-30 days after initial ED presentation) with patients diagnosed with appendicitis on the same day of ED presentation to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          In this cohort study, a retrospective analysis of commercially insured claims data was conducted from January 1 to December 15, 2019. Patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated symptoms associated with appendicitis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified using the Clinformatics Data Mart administrative database (Optum Insights). The study sample comprised eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged <18 years) who had previous ED visits within 30 days of an appendicitis diagnosis.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for abdominal pain and its combinations with other symptoms associated with appendicitis were compared between patients with a same-day diagnosis of appendicitis and patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis.

          Results

          Of 187 461 patients with a diagnosis of appendicitis, a total of 123 711 (66%; 101 375 adults [81.9%] and 22 336 children [18.1%]) were eligible for analysis. Among adults, 51 923 (51.2%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 44.3 (18.2) years; among children, 9631 (43.1%) were girls, with a mean (SD) age of 12.2 (18.2) years. The frequency of potentially missed appendicitis was 6060 of 101 375 adults (6.0%) and 973 of 22 336 children (4.4%). Patients with isolated abdominal pain (adults, AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.69; P < .001; children, AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001) or with abdominal pain and nausea and/or vomiting (adults, AOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P = .003; children, AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03) were less likely to have missed appendicitis. Patients with abdominal pain and constipation (adults, AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.75; P < .001; children, AOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.86-3.17; P < .001) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Stratified by the presence of undifferentiated symptoms, women (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.58-1.78; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.52-1.85; fever, AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; diarrhea, AOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.40; and constipation, AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.24-1.82) and girls (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.43-1.88; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13; fever, AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.11; diarrhea, AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.19-2.74; and constipation, AOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88-1.78) as well as patients with a comorbidity index of 2 or greater (adults, abdominal pain, AOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 3.09-3.60; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 3.23-4.14; fever, AOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 3.79-6.60; diarrhea, AOR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.39-5.38; and constipation, AOR, 4.17; 95% CI, 3.08-5.65; children, abdominal pain, AOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.93-3.05; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.89-3.45; fever, AOR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.71-6.25; diarrhea, AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.18-3.97; and constipation, AOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.30-3.70) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Adult patients who received computed tomographic scans at the initial ED visit (abdominal pain, AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.75; fever, AOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.58; diarrhea, AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; and constipation, AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) were less likely to have missed appendicitis.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Regardless of age, a missed diagnosis of appendicitis was more likely to occur in women, patients with comorbidities, and patients who experienced abdominal pain accompanied by constipation. Population-based estimates of the rates of potentially missed appendicitis reveal opportunities for improvement and identify factors that may mitigate the risk of a missed diagnosis.

          Abstract

          This cohort study uses insurance claims data to compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis with those diagnosed with appendicitis during the initial emergency department visit to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis among adults and children.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Identifying Increased Risk of Readmission and In-hospital Mortality Using Hospital Administrative Data: The AHRQ Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

            We extend the literature on comorbidity measurement by developing 2 indices, based on the Elixhauser Comorbidity measures, designed to predict 2 frequently reported health outcomes: in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission in administrative data. The Elixhauser measures are commonly used in research as an adjustment factor to control for severity of illness.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations

              Background The frequency of outpatient diagnostic errors is challenging to determine due to varying error definitions and the need to review data across multiple providers and care settings over time. We estimated the frequency of diagnostic errors in the US adult population by synthesising data from three previous studies of clinic-based populations that used conceptually similar definitions of diagnostic error. Methods Data sources included two previous studies that used electronic triggers, or algorithms, to detect unusual patterns of return visits after an initial primary care visit or lack of follow-up of abnormal clinical findings related to colorectal cancer, both suggestive of diagnostic errors. A third study examined consecutive cases of lung cancer. In all three studies, diagnostic errors were confirmed through chart review and defined as missed opportunities to make a timely or correct diagnosis based on available evidence. We extrapolated the frequency of diagnostic error obtained from our studies to the US adult population, using the primary care study to estimate rates of diagnostic error for acute conditions (and exacerbations of existing conditions) and the two cancer studies to conservatively estimate rates of missed diagnosis of colorectal and lung cancer (as proxies for other serious chronic conditions). Results Combining estimates from the three studies yielded a rate of outpatient diagnostic errors of 5.08%, or approximately 12 million US adults every year. Based upon previous work, we estimate that about half of these errors could potentially be harmful. Conclusions Our population-based estimate suggests that diagnostic errors affect at least 1 in 20 US adults. This foundational evidence should encourage policymakers, healthcare organisations and researchers to start measuring and reducing diagnostic errors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                9 March 2020
                March 2020
                9 March 2020
                : 3
                : 3
                : e200612
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [2 ]Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [3 ]Department of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
                [4 ]Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
                [5 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [6 ]Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: January 20, 2020.
                Published: March 9, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0612
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Mahajan P et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Prashant Mahajan, MD, MPH, MBA, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, 1540 E Hospital Dr, Room 2-737, SPC 4260, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-4260 ( pmahajan@ 123456med.umich.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Mahajan had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Mahajan, Basu, Pai, Singh, Kamdar.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Mahajan, Basu, Pai, Petersen, Bellolio, Gadepalli, Kamdar.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Mahajan, Pai, Kamdar.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Basu, Pai, Petersen, Gadepalli, Kamdar.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Mahajan, Basu, Pai.
                Supervision: Mahajan, Bellolio, Kamdar.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Singh reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the conduct of the study. Mr Kamdar reported receiving personal fees from Lucent Surgical Support Systems and Stanford University outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was supported by financial funding from the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Michigan. Dr Singh is partially funded by the Houston VA Health Services Research and Development Service and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13–413).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Meeting Presentations: Preliminary results of this study were presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting; May 16, 2018; Indianapolis, Indiana; and at the Pediatric Academic Societies 2018 Meeting; May 7, 2018; Toronto, Ontario, Canada (poster presentation).
                Additional Contributions: Patrick Brady, MPH, of the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at the University of Michigan, provided administrative support and oversight for Messrs Kamdar and Basu. Elizabeth Duffy, MA, of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Michigan, provided administrative and editorial support for Drs Mahajan and Pai. No compensation was received outside of usual salary.
                Article
                zoi200042
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0612
                7063499
                32150270
                e790f774-0fed-4283-9484-d441af1886a2
                Copyright 2020 Mahajan P et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 26 September 2019
                : 20 January 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Emergency Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content406

                Cited by31

                Most referenced authors813