Patient-centered, high-quality health care relies on accurate and timely diagnosis. Diagnosis is a complex, error-prone process. Prevention of errors involves understanding the cause of errors. This study investigated diagnostic discordance between admission and discharge in pediatric cases.
We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 5381 pediatric inpatients during 2017-2018 in a tertiary teaching hospital. We analyzed diagnostic consistency by comparing the first 4 digits of admission and discharge ICD-10 codes of the cases and classified them as concordant for \"complete and partial match\" or discordant for \"no match\".
Diagnostic discordance was observed in 49.2% with the highest prevalence in infections of the nervous and respiratory systems (Ps < 0.001). Multiple (multivariable) logistic regression analysis predicted a lower risk of diagnostic discordance with older children (aOR, 95%CI: 0.94, 0.93-0.96) and a higher risk with infectious diseases (aOR, 95%CI: 1.49, 1.33-1.66) and admission by resident and attending pediatricians (aOR, 95%CI: 1.41, 1.30-1.54). Discordant cases had a higher rate of antibiotic prescription (OR, 95%CI: 2.09, 1.87-2.33), a longer duration of antibiotic use (P = 0.02), a longer length of hospital stay (P < 0.001), and higher medical expenses (P < 0.001).
This study denotes a considerably high rate of discordance between admission and discharge diagnoses with an associated higher and longer prescription of antibiotics, a longer length of stay, and higher medical expenses among Chinese pediatric inpatient cases. Infectious diseases were identified as high-risk clinical conditions for discordance. Considering potential diagnostic and coding errors, departmental investigation of preventable diagnostic discordance is suggested for quality health care and preventing potential medicolegal consequences.

BACKGROUND: Mistakes or delays in the diagnosis of hollow organ perforation may be detrimental to prognosis. Nonetheless, emergency physicians (EPs) are prone to misdiagnosing this condition in specific scenarios. The factors leading to errors in their cognitive processes, however, have received little attention.
METHODS: Using a qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with EPs in the emergency departments (EDs) of three hospitals in Taiwan. We purposively selected participants to obtain a sample that can contribute essential information about the diagnostic process. Sampling continued until new information was no longer being gathered. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed by two investigators according to grounded theory.
RESULTS: Based on 23 cases from 20 EPs, four themes emerged from the analysis regarding the reasons for diagnostic errors: (1) atypical disease presentations (6/23; 26%), (2) cognitive process of the physicians (21/23; 91%), (3) systemic factors (14/23; 61%), and (4) composite factors (14/23; 61%).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insight into the factors that contribute to diagnostic error in cases of abdominal hollow organ perforation. The results offer a basis on which to build a framework for teaching physicians how to avoid misdiagnosing hollow organ perforation in the future.