Questionnaire study on the utility of autopsy case conferences related to emergency medicine practices

We examined whether and how conferences on cases of medico-legal autopsy after emergency medicine (EM) practices improved the diagnostic accuracy and expertise of emergency medicine practitioners (EMPs) and forensic pathologists (FPs); we also examined the necessity of imaging in autopsy diagnoses. We additionally discuss whether imaging could replace autopsy.An unsigned, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the attendees of monthly case conferences during which EMPs and FPs discussed EM-associated autopsy cases. The questionnaire addressed the following 6 questions: was the conference useful for forensic medicine or EM practices, was autopsy necessary for each case, were the autopsy and clinical diagnoses consistent, was imaging necessary for autopsy diagnosis, and should autopsy results be disclosed to the public. Participants were autopsy operators, third-party EMPs, and FPs, primarily from universities in and near Tokyo.Fifty-two cases were discussed; more than 80% of the attendees acknowledged the usefulness of autopsy and the conferences, and 33.6% corrected their diagnoses by considering autopsy information. Major clinical misdiagnoses were corrected by autopsy in 35.3% of cases, including procedure-related hemorrhage, intoxication, asphyxia, fat embolism, diabetes, organ injuries, and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Approximately 75% of the attendees recognized the usefulness of imaging for autopsy. However, in a series of four SAH cases, the clinical diagnoses were corrected after the conferences more often by EMPs than by FPs. In a violence-related case, false legal judgment was prevented because the conference discussion corrected the clinical diagnosis from traumatic to natural.In conclusion, the conference improved the accuracy and expertise of diagnoses provided by EMPs and FPs; conference participation led to the correction of major clinical misdiagnoses as well as that of the first diagnoses issued by attendees in more than one-third cases. The usefulness of imaging for autopsy was acknowledged by two thirds of the attendees. Our results also suggested that imaging cannot replace autopsy in deaths related to procedure or violence and in several categories of deaths such as intoxication and asphyxia.