Automated identification of diagnostic labelling errors in medicine - Hautz, W. E.; Kundig, M. M.; Tschanz, R.; Birrenbach, T.; Schuster, A.; Burkle, T.; Hautz, S. C.; Sauter, T. C.; Krummrey, G. (Diagnosis (Berl), 2021)
OBJECTIVES: Identification of diagnostic error is complex and mostly relies on expert ratings, a severely limited procedure. We developed a system that allows to automatically identify diagnostic labelling error from diagnoses coded according to the international classification of diseases (ICD), often available as routine health care data. METHODS: The system developed (index test) was validated against rater based classifications taken from three previous studies of diagnostic labeling error (reference standard). The system compares pairs of diagnoses through calculation of their distance within the ICD taxonomy. Calculation is based on four different algorithms. To assess the concordance between index test and reference standard, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and corresponding confidence intervals. Analysis were conducted overall and separately per algorithm and type of available dataset. RESULTS: Diagnoses of 1,127 cases were analyzed. Raters previously classified 24.58% of cases as diagnostic labelling errors (ranging from 12.3 to 87.2% in the three datasets). AUROC ranged between 0.821 and 0.837 overall, depending on the algorithm used to calculate the index test (95% CIs ranging from 0.8 to 0.86). Analyzed per type of dataset separately, the highest AUROC was 0.924 (95% CI 0.887-0.962). CONCLUSIONS: The trigger system to automatically identify diagnostic labeling error from routine health care data performs excellent, and is unaffected by the reference standards' limitations. It is however only applicable to cases with pairs of diagnoses, of which one must be more accurate or otherwise superior than the other, reflecting a prevalent definition of a diagnostic labeling error.
Keywords: journalArticle; *Algorithms; Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control; Humans; Isabel Healthcare UK, Mundipharma Medical Switzerland, VisualDx USA, all outside; Mundipharma Research UK, MDI International Australia, Roche Diagnostics Germany,; WEH has received financial support for a congress he chaired from EBSCO Germany,; all outside the submitted work. WEH has provided paid consultancies to AO; decision support; diagnostic error; foundation Switzerland, MDI International Australia, outside the submitted work; quality improvement; the Swiss National Science foundation, Zoll foundation, Drager Medical Germany,; the submitted work