Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
Published on: July 29, 2013
Identification of diagnostic discrepancies as a quality assurance measure in emergency medicine - a validation study
Thimo Marcin1, Nadine Werthmüller1,2, Fabian Kölbener1,2
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Bern, 3010, Switzerland.
Background:
Diagnostic errors are a major care health concern but remain difficult to study because their identification often requires resource-intensive chart reviews. We aimed to validate a previously proposed automated method for detecting discrepancies between an initial and a later, more definitive diagnosis as a screening tool for potential diagnostic errors in a large, prospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients.
Methods:
This secondary analysis included 1,204 patients enrolled in the DDxBRO randomized trial, which evaluated the effect of a diagnostic decision support tool on diagnostic quality in four Swiss emergency departments. For each patient, the ED diagnosis was extracted from the ED discharge letter, and the follow-up diagnosis at 14 days was obtained from hospital discharge letters, or general practitioner notes. All diagnoses were coded using ICD-10 and manually classified for discrepancies by two blinded ED physicians according to a predefined scheme. The automated method calculated the "similarity" between ICD-10 codes for ED and follow-up diagnoses. Discriminative performance of this method to distinguish between cases with and without diagnostic error was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were assessed across multiple cutoffs.
Results:
The automated method showed high and consistent discriminative performance across all algorithms tested, with areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.94 to 0.95. Using the most sensitive cutoff in the simplest algorithm, all true discrepancies were detected, but 162 cases (15%) were incorrectly flagged as discrepant.
Conclusion:
The automated method demonstrated high accuracy and shows promise as a practical screening tool to prioritize cases for resource-intensive chart review.
Trial Registration:
NCT05346523.
Related Concept Videos
Quality Assurance
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Self-Discrepancy and Its Effects
Appendicitis-II: Diagnostic Studies and Management
Diagnosing Appendicitis
It requires a multifaceted approach, starting with a detailed physical examination to pinpoint the location and nature of the pain and identify any associated symptoms. Laboratory tests play a crucial role. A complete Blood Count (CBC) typically reveals leukocytosis (an increased number of...
Reliability and Validity
Emerging Adulthood

