Band 7, Heft 2

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, an increasing number of countries and territories are adopting restrictive measures based on physical (“social”) distancing, aimed at preventing human-to-human transmission and thereby limiting virus propagation. Nationwide lockdowns, encompassing mass quarantine under stay-at-home ordinances, have already been proven effective to contain the COVID-19 outbreak in some countries. Nevertheless, a prolonged homestay may also be associated with potential side effects, which may jeopardize people’s health and thus must be recognized and mitigated in a way without violating local ordinances. Some of the most important undesirable consequences of prolonged homestay such as physical inactivity, weight gain, behavioral addiction disorders, insufficient sunlight exposure and social isolation will be critically addressed in this article, which also aims to provide some tentative recommendations for the alleviation of side effects.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2), is an ongoing pandemic that has already affected millions of patients worldwide, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality burden. Although the clinical and laboratory characteristics of this illness have been reported in patients from China and Europe, data are scant in the United States. Methods We extracted data regarding all patients hospitalized at our hospital with COVID-19 infection between March 1 and April 4, 2020. Presenting signs and symptoms, laboratory and imaging findings, treatment, and complications were recorded from electronic medical records (EMRs). The primary composite endpoint was admission to intensive care unit (ICU), shock, or death. Results We had a total of 43 patients tested for COVID-19 at the emergency room (ER) or during hospitalization, 16 (37%) of whom were admitted with COVID-19 infection. The mean age was 65.5 years and 75% were males. The most common presenting symptoms were fever (94%), cough (88%), and dyspnea (81%). A loss of smell and taste sensations were reported by three (19%) patients. Low oxygen saturation was present in 38% of patients, whilst 31% were hypotensive on admission. Hyponatremia (50%), elevated C-reactive protein (CRP; 100%), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 80%) were common. Acute renal failure, myocardial injury, and elevation in aminotransferases occurred in 69%, 19%, and 38% patients, respectively. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 50% of patients. A total of three patients died; all were aged 70 years or older. Conclusions Laboratory abnormalities and acute renal failure were common in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 infection in our center. Admission to ICU and mechanical ventilation were common.

Background Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease affecting 10% of females in which endometrial-like tissue grows outside the uterus, resulting in pain, infertility, and physical and psychosocial dysfunction. Prior research documenting diagnostic error reports a 6.7-year mean diagnostic delay. This study takes a patient-oriented approach and aims to complement prior research on diagnostic error by examining patient-reported experiences with misdiagnosis. Methods Data were part of a larger online survey comprising nonrandomly sampled patients with self-reported surgically confirmed endometriosis (n = 758). We examined patients’ reports of misdiagnosis, to which healthcare professionals (HCPs) they attributed misdiagnosis, mean diagnostic delay, and endometriosis symptoms and physical sites predicting misdiagnosis reports. Results Mean reported diagnostic delay was 8.6 years. 75.2% of patients reported being misdiagnosed with another physical health (95.1%) and/or mental health problem (49.5%) and most frequently by gynecologists (53.2%) followed by general practitioners (34.4%). Higher odds of reporting a physical or mental health misdiagnosis was associated with reports of virtually all symptoms and endometriosis on the bladder, small bowel, pelvic sidewall, and rectum. Higher odds of reporting a physical health misdiagnosis was exclusively associated with reports of endometriosis on the appendix. Higher odds of reporting a mental health misdiagnosis was exclusively associated with reports of a younger symptom onset age; endometriosis on the diaphragm, large bowel, lung, and ureter; and comorbid adenomyosis diagnosis. Conclusions Endometriosis continues to present serious and complex diagnostic challenges. These findings corroborate previous objective investigations documenting endometriosis diagnostic error, establish the first patient-reported incidence, and further demonstrate value in including patients in diagnostic error research.

Background Little is known about how practicing Internal Medicine (IM) clinicians perceive diagnostic error, and whether perceptions are in agreement with the published literature. Methods A 16-question survey was administered across two IM practices: one a referral practice providing care for patients traveling for a second opinion and the other a traditional community-based primary care practice. Our aim was to identify individual- and system-level factors contributing to diagnostic error (primary outcome) and conditions at greatest risk of diagnostic error (secondary outcome). Results Sixty-five of 125 clinicians surveyed (51%) responded. The most commonly perceived individual factors contributing to diagnostic error included atypical patient presentations (83%), failure to consider other diagnoses (63%) and inadequate follow-up of test results (53%). The most commonly cited system-level factors included cognitive burden created by the volume of data in the electronic health record (EHR) (68%), lack of time to think (64%) and systems that do not support collaboration (40%). Conditions felt to be at greatest risk of diagnostic error included cancer (46%), pulmonary embolism (43%) and infection (37%). Conclusions Inadequate clinician time and sub-optimal patient and test follow-up are perceived by IM clinicians to be persistent contributors to diagnostic error. Clinician perceptions of conditions at greatest risk of diagnostic error may differ from the published literature.

Background Health professionals are encouraged to learn from their errors. Determining how primary care physicians (PCPs) react to a case, in which their original diagnosis differed from the final outcome, could provide new insights on how they learn from experiences. We explored how PCPs altered their diagnostic evaluation of future patients after cases where the originally assumed diagnosis turned out to be wrong. Methods We asked German PCPs to complete an online survey where they described how the patient concerned originally presented, the subsequent course of events and whether they would change their diagnostic work-up of future patients. Qualitative methods were used to analyze narrative text obtained by this survey. Results A total of 29 PCPs submitted cases, most of which were ultimately found to be more severe than originally assumed. PCPs (n = 27) reflected on changes to their subsequent clinical decisions in the form of general maxims (n = 20) or more specific rules (n = 11). Most changes would have resulted in a lower threshold for investigations, referral and/or a more extensive collection of diagnostic information. PCPs decided not only to listen more often to their intuition (gut feelings), but to also practice more analytical reasoning. Participants felt the need for change of practice even if no clinical standards had been violated in the diagnosis of that case. Some decided to resort to defensive strategies in the future. Conclusions We describe mechanisms by which physicians calibrate their decision thresholds, as well as their cognitive mode (intuitive vs. analytical). PCPs reported the need for change in clinical practice despite the absence of error in some cases.

Background Front-line clinicians are expected to make accurate and timely diagnostic decisions before transferring patients to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) but may not always learn their patients’ outcomes. We evaluated the characteristics of post-transfer updates received by referring clinicians regarding PICU patients and determined preferences regarding content, delivery, and timing of such updates. Methods We administered an electronic cross-sectional survey to Iowa clinicians who billed for ≥5 pediatric patients or referred ≥1 patient to the University of Iowa (UI) PICU in the year before survey administration. Results One hundred and one clinicians (51 non-UI, 50 UI-affiliated) responded. Clinicians estimated that, on average, 8% of pediatric patients they saw over 1 year required PICU admission; clinicians received updates on 40% of patients. Seventy percent of UI clinicians obtained updates via self-initiated electronic record review, while 37% of non-UI clinicians relied on PICU communication (p = 0.013). Clinicians indicated that updates regarding diagnoses/outcomes will be most relevant to their practice. Among clinicians who received updates, 13% received unexpected information; 40% changed their practice as a result. Conclusions Clinicians received updates on less than half of the patients they referred to a PICU, although such updates could potentially influence clinical practice. Study findings will inform the development of a formal feedback system from the PICU to referring clinicians.

Background Diagnostic error is a major preventable cause of harm to patients. There is currently limited data in the literature on the rates of misdiagnosis of doctors working in an ophthalmic emergency department (ED). Misdiagnosis was defined as a presumed diagnosis being proven incorrect upon further investigation or review. Methods In this retrospective audit, data was collected and analysed from 1 week of presentations at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH) ED. Results There were 534 ophthalmic presentations during the study period. The misdiagnosis rates of referrers were: general practitioners (30%), optometrists (25.5%), external hospital EDs (18.8%), external hospital ophthalmology departments (25%) and private ophthalmologists (0%). Misdiagnosis rates of RVEEH doctors were: emergency registrars (7.1%), RVEEH residents (16.7%), first-year registrars (5.1%), second-year registrars (7.1%), third-year registrars (7.7%), fourth-year registrars (0%), senior registrars (6.9%), fellows (0%) and consultants (8.3%). Conclusions The misdiagnosis rates in our study were comparable to general medical diagnostic error rates of 10–15%. This study acts as a novel pilot; in the future, a larger-scale multi-centre audit of ophthalmic presentations to general emergency departments should be undertaken to further investigate diagnostic error.

Background One of the issues of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is false-negativity caused by hemoglobin degradation by bacteria. We investigated the usefulness of the transferrin assay, which is stable toward bacteria. Methods The study included 1174 patients who visited our hospital and underwent colonoscopy for some symptoms or for cancer screening. We compared the hemoglobin-transferrin combination assay with the hemoglobin-alone assay using the Discrete Clinical Chemistry Analyzer NS-Plus and 1174 clinical samples. In the combination assay, two hemoglobin cutoff values (a) and (b) and one transferrin cutoff value (c) were set. Cases with values of (a) or more were defined as primary positive and values lower than (b) were defined as negative. Cases with values between (a) and (b) underwent the transferrin assay. Then, cases with values of (c) or higher were defined as secondary positive. All primary and secondary positive cases were defined as positive. Among the combination of cutoff values (a), (b) and (c), we identified Method A exhibiting high specificity and a positive predictive value (PPV), and Method B exhibiting the highest sensitivity. Results In Method A, the sensitivity of colorectal cancer detection increased from 67.3% to 68.2%, the specificity significantly (p = 0.0011) increased from 90.5% to 92.6%, and the PPV increased from 42.9% to 49.6% compared with the hemoglobin-alone assay. In Method B, the sensitivity increased significantly (p = 0.046) from 67.3% to 71.1% and the PPV increased from 42.9% to 44.8%. Conclusions This combination assay showed higher accuracy and effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening.

Background Although the most common cause of thyrotoxicosis is Graves’ disease, the determination of the cause of thyrotoxicosis is important for establishing appropriate management. Diagnosis of surreptitious ingestion of thyroid hormones or factitious thyrotoxicosis often presents a difficult challenge especially in a patient with previously diagnosed Graves’ disease. The objective of this report was to demonstrate various approaches to support the diagnosis of factitious thyrotoxicosis. Case presentation We describe a patient with underlying Graves’ disease who underwent definitive therapy and needed long-term levothyroxine (LT4) replacement therapy. Later she developed thyrotoxicosis. Although factitious thyrotoxicosis was suspected because of very low thyroid uptake and low thyroglobulin (Tg) levels with the absence of thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAbs), she still refused any medication or substance use. After the administration of bile acid sequestrant, the thyroid hormone levels rapidly returned to normal within 1 month. Conclusions The diagnosis of factitious thyrotoxicosis is based upon the absence of goiter, suppressed serum Tg level, decreased radioactive iodine (RAI) uptake, and excellent response after cholestyramine treatment.