| The Problem This paper covers many issues surrounding misdiagnosis in workers’ compensation. It was written to start an industry-wide discussion on the issue. The ideal goal in workers’ compensation is to “provide the right care at the right time” to maximize recovery and return to work. Workers’ compensation often deals with a range of injuries and conditions that can be difficult to diagnose accurately, especially early in the claim. The increasing use of AI in workers’ compensation to automatically authorize medical care based on diagnosis codes introduces a new layer of complexity in ensuring appropriate and timely treatment. While AI has the potential to streamline care approvals and reduce administrative burdens, it also magnifies the risks associated with misdiagnosis. The diagnosis can evolve as treatment and recovery progress during the claim. Relying on the initial diagnosis codes to authorize treatment without considering the potential for error or the need for further evaluation could result in delayed or inappropriate care, hindering recovery and increasing overall costs. The challenge of correct diagnosis is more than just an issue of technology. We must recognize that human error, bias, and limitations in clinical experience and judgment are significant factors in achieving an accurate diagnosis. Key Questions • How wide is the misdiagnosis issue in workers’ compensation? • How can we ensure that AI-driven authorization systems accurately assess the validity of diagnosis codes? • What safeguards or guard rails can be implemented to prevent over or undertreatment or delayed care due to inaccurate diagnoses? • How can we balance the efficiency gains of AI with the need for human oversight and ethical considerations? • What are the other issues in the workers’ compensation system involving misdiagnosis that delay recovery and cost the system? There are many potential implications due to inaccurate diagnoses: • If a diagnosis is missed or misdiagnosed, the injured worker may not receive the necessary treatment, leading to prolonged suffering, disability, or even permanent impairment. • An inaccurate diagnosis could result in unnecessary treatments, which can be costly and potentially harmful. • Improper or inaccurate benefit provision. • Deliberately reported inaccurate diagnoses can create opportunities for fraudulent treatment or abuse of the system. Introduction As a new claims examiner, I believed doctors were infallible. Early in my career, my first introduction to a misdiagnosis was a carpal tunnel claim that turned out to be a bulging disc in the neck. After a failed carpal tunnel surgery, the doctor attempted to use papaya juice to dissolve the bulging disc. We finally closed the claim after two more neck surgeries (the second being a fusion). It took me a long time to truly appreciate the human condition and the variability of quality associated with medical care. Although diagnostic accuracy and medical care have advanced since my original introduction to workers’ compensation, challenges remain in diagnostic accuracy. Scientific studies have shown that misdiagnosis can significantly drive up costs or even kill patients. The workers’ compensation industry has generally overlooked misdiagnosis as an issue. This oversight is partly due to the assumption that poor treatment outcomes were primarily due to a lack of access to care or incentivized over-treatment rather than diagnostic errors. Several factors help minimize the impact of misdiagnosis on workers’ compensation. Over fifty percent of the injuries are relatively minor (cuts, bruises, etc.), requiring minimal medical intervention. Most work-related injuries are orthopedic or musculoskeletal, which, in theory, makes them easier to diagnose than complex medical problems like cancers and other diseases. Another factor in reducing misdiagnosis is that there is usually prompt access to clinics or ER rooms following the injuries for workers’ compensation injuries. Additional implications from Misdiagnosis Misdiagnosis in workers’ compensation carries unique implications that differ significantly from those in group health care. One of the most critical impacts of misdiagnosis is on return-to-work decisions. A misdiagnosis can lead to a premature return to work, which may exacerbate the original injury and cause new injuries, complicating the worker’s recovery and prolonging their time away from work. Alternatively, a misdiagnosis may hinder prompt return to work, which is a primary goal of the system and the optimum outcome for injured workers. Causality disputes are a significant concern in workers’ compensation, as misdiagnosis can affect the determination of whether an injury is work-related. This can lead to conflicts between the worker, employer, and insurer, delaying the provision of benefits and leaving workers without necessary support during their recovery. Misdiagnosis also impacts the accuracy of permanent impairment ratings, particularly if unnecessary surgeries result from the misdiagnosis. These ratings are crucial in determining the compensation and benefits a worker is entitled to. An incorrect diagnosis can result in an inaccurate rating, either underestimating or overestimating the worker’s impairment, affecting their compensation. Systemic Issues Several systemic factors within workers’ compensation contribute to the risk of misdiagnosis. The first is a fee for service system tends to limit the time that the doctor can spend with each injured worker. This potentially can result in rushed or incomplete assessments. In today’s world access to specialty physicians (especially in remote or rural locations) can result in restricted access to specialized care or second opinions, which may be useful to help achieve an accurate diagnosis, especially in complex cases. The system’s reliance on second opinions and appeal processes can sometimes reveal initial misdiagnoses, offering an opportunity for correction. However, the need for these processes also highlights the potential for diagnostic errors in the initial stages of a claim. The system’s focus on determining whether an injury or illness is work-related can lead to a narrow diagnostic perspective, potentially overlooking other co-existing conditions. Employer influence can further complicate the diagnostic process. Employers may exert pressure to minimize or downplay the severity of injuries in a misguided effort to reduce the impact of their workers’ compensation claims. The potential for misdiagnosis increases when other health issues or comorbidities are not considered. Misdiagnosis in workers’ compensation can also result in regulatory and compliance issues, exposing employers and insurers to penalties and legal challenges, further complicating the resolution of the worker’s case. Diagnostic Accuracy and Evolution Diagnostic accuracy is not a static concept but a dynamic process that evolves as new information becomes available during treatment and recovery. This phenomenon, sometimes called “diagnostic drift” or “diagnostic evolution,” is particularly challenging in workers’ compensation cases, where injured workers may present with complex, multifaceted conditions. As treatment progresses, new symptoms may emerge, or existing symptoms may change, requiring healthcare providers to reassess and adjust the diagnosis accordingly. Empirical data underscores the fluid nature of diagnosis. For example, a study published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma found that 22% of patients with hip fractures experienced a change in their diagnosis during hospitalization. Similarly, research from the Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation revealed that 40% of patients with mild traumatic brain injuries had their diagnoses altered within the first year after injury. These findings illustrate that diagnosis is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that must adapt as new data becomes available. Studies have shown that the initial diagnosis is frequently refined or changed as new information emerges. For instance, research indicates that up to 50% of initial diagnoses are modified during treatment. This highlights the inherent complexity of diagnosing injuries or illnesses, where initial assessments may only capture part of the picture. The impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) further complicates diagnostic accuracy. ACEs can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, adding another layer of complexity to the diagnostic process. For instance, a worker who initially presents with a bodily injury may later reveal underlying psychological issues or other health concerns linked to their past experiences. This requires a more nuanced and evolving diagnostic approach to appropriately address all aspects of the worker’s health. Diagnostic evolution is particularly evident in cases involving concussions and traumatic brain injuries, where the full extent of the injury may not be immediately apparent. Symptoms can develop or worsen over time, necessitating a broader or more nuanced diagnosis. Another critical aspect of diagnostic evolution is the development of comorbidities and secondary conditions. Injured workers, for example, may initially be diagnosed with a physical injury but later develop secondary conditions such as depression, anxiety, or sleep disorders. These additional conditions can significantly impact recovery and require diagnosis and treatment plan adjustments. Claims Systems and Bill Review An additional factor complicating the question of misdiagnosis and claims administration in workers’ compensation is that most claims systems only keep track of the original ICD-10 code. Additionally many of the claims systems are not designed to take multiple diagnosis codes. When there is a change in the diagnosis, it is up to the claims examiner to manually make the change in the claims system. A more accurate capture and use of diagnostic codes is usually, in the bill review system (which may not be directly or fully interfaced with the claims system). The bill review systems usually fully keep track of the various ICD-10 codes and relate them to the treatment provided. However, with many claims operations the bill review process is a separate system that a third-party vendor sometimes manages. Ranges of Misdiagnosis Misdiagnosis is a significant concern in healthcare, with studies indicating that the rate of diagnostic errors can vary widely depending on the context, population, and criteria used to define misdiagnosis. It’s important to note that misdiagnosis can occur in both directions. Overdiagnosis, or false positives, occurs when a condition is diagnosed that the patient does not have, leading to unnecessary treatments and interventions. Conversely, underdiagnosis, or false negatives, happens when a genuine condition is missed or incorrectly attributed to another cause, potentially delaying critical treatment. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that approximately 5% of outpatient diagnoses require correction or further completion. This statistic underscores that diagnostic errors are not uncommon, even in routine care settings. A review of studies on diagnostic errors in physical medicine published in the Journal of Pain estimated that the error rate ranges between 10% and 30%. This broad range reflects the diverse factors influencing diagnostic accuracy, including the complexity of the conditions being treated, the experience and biases of healthcare providers, and the systems in place for diagnosing and managing care. These estimates highlight the challenges and risks associated with diagnostic processes, particularly in complex fields like physical medicine. They also emphasize the need for continual vigilance, the incorporation of second opinions when appropriate, and the refinement of diagnostic criteria and methods to reduce the likelihood of errors. Understanding the ranges of misdiagnosis is essential for improving diagnostic accuracy and patient care outcomes. Comparing misdiagnosis by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to treating physicians With the entire medical system experiencing a shortage of treating physicians, there has been a trend toward using PAs and NPs in the clinical setting. There have been studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of Physician Assistants (PAs), Nurse Practitioners (NPs), and Medical Doctors (MDs), including specialists like orthopedic doctors. Here are some key findings: • Similar error rates: A 2019 systematic review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that PAs and NPs had similar diagnostic error rates to MDs, ranging from 5.5% to 15.6% across various studies. [1] • Orthopedic specialty: A 2020 study published in the Journal of Orthopedic Trauma found that NPs and PAs in orthopedic settings had a slightly higher error rate (12.1%) compared to orthopedic residents (8.5%) and attending physicians (6.3%). [2] • Primary care setting: A 2018 study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that NPs and PAs in primary care settings had a lower diagnostic accuracy (83.1%) than MDs (90.4%). [3] • Factors influencing accuracy: Research suggests that experience, training, and collaboration with MDs can impact diagnostic accuracy among PAs and NPs. [4] Key Indicators of Potential Misdiagnosis In addition to the broader causes and factors contributing to misdiagnosis, specific early indicators may signal a potential misdiagnosis in progress. Recognizing these indicators can help healthcare providers reassess and correct diagnoses, ensuring patients receive appropriate and effective treatment. One significant indicator is inconsistent or contradictory symptoms. When workers report symptoms that do not align with their diagnosed condition or present with contradictions, it may suggest that the initial diagnosis requires reevaluation. Such inconsistencies indicate that the underlying condition needs to be accurately identified. Another crucial factor is unaddressed comorbidities. When healthcare providers fail to consider or adequately address co-existing medical conditions, the risk of misdiagnosis or inadequate treatment increases. Comorbid conditions can complicate the clinical picture, necessitating adjustments to the initial diagnosis. Patient-reported concerns or doubts about their diagnosis or treatment plan can also indicate potential misdiagnosis. Workers expressing these concerns may highlight errors or oversights in the diagnostic process. Listening to and addressing these patient-reported issues is essential for ensuring diagnostic accuracy. Another critical factor contributing to misdiagnosis is the need for specialist referral. When workers are not referred to specialists or for advanced diagnostic testing when warranted, the risk of diagnostic errors increases. Specialists bring additional expertise and tools often crucial for accurate diagnosis, particularly in complex cases. More diagnostic testing can also lead to misdiagnosis. Inadequate or incomplete testing may fail to fully explore the patient’s condition, resulting in incorrect or delayed diagnoses. Comprehensive testing is essential to confirm the diagnosis and rule out other potential conditions. Medication non-response or adverse reactions can indicate that the underlying diagnosis is incorrect. When workers do not respond to prescribed medications or experience unexpected adverse reactions, the treatment may not address the actual condition, warranting further diagnostic investigation. Unexplained symptom progression is another key indicator of potential misdiagnosis. If workers experience worsening or progression of symptoms without apparent explanation, it may suggest that the current diagnosis is incomplete or incorrect, necessitating a reassessment of the condition. Diagnostic coding errors can also contribute to misdiagnosis. Mistakes in coding, whether due to clerical errors or misinterpretation, can lead to incorrect treatment plans that do not align with the patient’s condition. Accurate coding is crucial for ensuring that the treatment plan matches the correct diagnosis. Lack of interdisciplinary collaboration is another significant factor that can lead to diagnostic errors. When healthcare providers do not communicate or collaborate effectively, the patient may receive fragmented care, increasing the likelihood of misdiagnosis. Effective interdisciplinary collaboration is vital for a holistic approach to diagnosis and treatment. Finally, patient non-adherence to treatment plans or providing incomplete information can complicate the diagnostic process and lead to misdiagnosis. Understanding the reasons behind non-adherence is essential to ensure that the diagnosis is accurate and that the treatment plan is appropriate. Impact of Technology on Diagnostic Accuracy The advent of advanced technology, including radiology and sophisticated imaging techniques, has significantly transformed the diagnostic process, often leading to improved accuracy in identifying medical conditions. These technologies allow for earlier detection, more precise imaging, and a deeper understanding of complex medical cases, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. However, the increased reliance on technology also introduces new challenges that can affect diagnostic accuracy. One such challenge is over-diagnosis, where advanced imaging detects conditions that may not be clinically significant or would not have caused harm if left undetected. This can lead to unnecessary treatments, increased patient anxiety, and added healthcare costs. Another challenge is the potential for misinterpretation of test results. While imaging technology provides detailed information, the accuracy of the diagnosis still heavily depends on the healthcare provider’s expertise in interpreting the results. Misinterpretation can occur due to various factors, including cognitive biases, lack of experience, or simply the complex nature of the analyzed images. Technical errors also pose a risk in the diagnostic process. Equipment malfunctions or technical glitches can result in better-quality images or incorrect data, which may lead to inaccurate diagnoses. Despite the advanced nature of these technologies, they are not infallible and require proper maintenance, calibration, and skilled operation to ensure reliable results. Transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnostic Coding The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes represented a significant shift in the landscape of diagnostic coding, introducing a much higher level of specificity. While this increased specificity can potentially improve diagnostic accuracy and enhance data-tracking capabilities, it also presents several challenges that can impact the diagnostic process. One of the primary challenges associated with the ICD-10 transition is the risk of coding errors. The sheer volume and complexity of the ICD-10 system, which includes over 155,000 codes, makes it more difficult for healthcare providers and coders to select the correct codes accurately and consistently. Inaccurate or incomplete coding can lead to incorrect diagnoses, affecting patient care and the accuracy of health records. Another challenge is diagnostic uncertainty, where healthcare providers may need help to choose the most accurate code from the expanded list of options. This uncertainty can result in providers defaulting to less specific codes or choosing codes that do not fully capture the patient’s condition, leading to potential misdiagnosis. Data inconsistencies are also a significant concern in the transition to ICD-10. The variability in coding practices among providers and institutions can hinder efforts to track, compare, and analyze diagnostic data effectively. Inconsistent coding can complicate patient care coordination, impact reimbursement processes, and create challenges in epidemiological research and public health monitoring. Technology and Automation in Workers’ Compensation Integrating automated treatment approval processes and diagnostic tools within the workers’ compensation system holds significant potential for reducing misdiagnosis and improving the efficiency of claims management. These technologies can analyze large datasets, identify patterns, and spot potential misdiagnoses more efficiently than human reviewers, offering significant benefits in managing complex cases and large volumes of claims. One key advantage of automation in workers’ compensation is its ability to provide real-time feedback to healthcare providers and claims examiners. Automated systems can alert these professionals to potential errors or inconsistencies in diagnosis or treatment, enabling them to make immediate adjustments. This can be particularly valuable in a system where timely and accurate diagnoses are critical for ensuring appropriate care and benefits for injured workers. Automation can also help streamline communication between healthcare providers, claims examiners, and injured workers. In the workers’ compensation context, where multiple stakeholders are involved, ensuring that all parties can access accurate and up-to-date information is essential for coordinating care and managing claims efficiently. Automated systems can facilitate this communication, reducing the risk of miscommunication and helping to ensure that all parties are aligned in their understanding of the worker’s condition and treatment plan. However, it is essential to recognize that more than technology alone is needed for all the workers’ compensation system challenges. The effectiveness of automated systems relies heavily on ensuring data quality—the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” is particularly relevant here. Inaccurate or incomplete data can lead to flawed analysis, incorrect treatment approvals, and inappropriate care for injured workers. Regular monitoring and evaluation of these systems are essential to assess their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement, ensuring they remain aligned with the goals of providing accurate and fair outcomes for all parties involved. Another critical consideration is addressing biases in algorithm development and data analysis. In the workers’ compensation system, where decisions can significantly impact a worker’s health and financial well-being, it is crucial to ensure that automated tools do not perpetuate existing biases. Careful design, ongoing oversight, and continuous improvement are necessary to ensure these technologies contribute to equitable and accurate diagnoses. Provider Incentives in Workers’ Compensation The workers’ compensation system is often fraught with misplaced incentives that can lead to suboptimal care and misdiagnosis. One significant issue is the fee-for-service model, which can drive some medical providers to over-treat injuries. In some instances, providers may even deliberately misdiagnose a condition to secure authorization for unnecessary treatments, prioritizing financial gain over patient welfare. To address these issues and reduce the incidence of misdiagnosis, it is crucial to realign incentives so that healthcare providers are encouraged to prioritize diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. One effective strategy is introducing financial rewards that offer bonuses or increased reimbursement rates based on the return to work and maximizing the patient’s recovery. An accurate diagnosis is the foundation for optimum medical results. In addition to financial incentives, reputation-based incentives can play a decisive role in promoting diagnostic accuracy. Recognizing and rewarding providers with high diagnostic accuracy rates or excellent patient satisfaction scores can create a competitive environment where providers strive for excellence in their diagnostic practices. Public recognition and accolades can enhance a provider’s reputation, encouraging them to maintain high standards of care. Another incentive is the provision of professional development opportunities. By offering ongoing education and training, healthcare providers can continuously improve their diagnostic skills and stay updated with the latest advancements in medical practice. This not only enhances their ability to make accurate diagnoses but also aligns their professional growth with the goals of the workers’ compensation system. By aligning incentives with diagnostic accuracy, the workers’ compensation system can encourage healthcare providers to prioritize accurate diagnoses and appropriate treatment plans. This shift in focus can lead to better patient outcomes, reduced misdiagnosis rates, and a more efficient and effective system overall. Improving Diagnostic Accuracy in Workers’ Compensation A comprehensive approach involving multiple strategies is essential to enhance diagnostic accuracy within the workers’ compensation system. One of the most effective measures is implementing automated monitoring systems to identify potential misdiagnoses early on. These systems should analyze criteria such as the duration of temporary disability (TD), requests for unusual levels of diagnostic tests, or treatment plans that do not typically correspond with the diagnosed condition. These automated tools can help prevent prolonged misdiagnosis by flagging inconsistencies and ensuring injured workers receive appropriate care. In addition to automation, routine claim reviews for diagnostic accuracy are crucial. A review should be conducted four weeks after a claim is reported to assess whether the initial diagnosis remains accurate, given any new information or changes in the worker’s condition. Furthermore, claims with medical reserves set above $50,000 should undergo a thorough medical review to ensure that the diagnosis justifies the complexity and cost of the treatment plan. Enhanced training for healthcare providers is another critical strategy for reducing misdiagnosis. By focusing on diagnostic accuracy, effective communication, and the use of advanced diagnostic tools, training programs can equip providers with the skills necessary to make accurate diagnoses. Continuous education is essential to keep providers updated with the latest medical advancements. Enhanced communication between healthcare providers, claims examiners, and injured workers is essential. Clear and consistent communication ensures that all parties are aligned in understanding the worker’s condition and treatment plan, reducing the risk of misdiagnosis due to miscommunication or misunderstandings. Adopting and integrating new technologies is critical in improving diagnostic accuracy. Embracing advanced diagnostic tools, such as improved imaging techniques and data analysis software, can provide healthcare providers with more accurate information, supporting better diagnosis and treatment decisions. Regular updates and maintenance of these technologies are necessary to ensure their effectiveness. A commitment to regular review and evaluation of diagnostic protocols is essential for maintaining high standards of diagnostic accuracy. Continuous assessment and improvement based on outcomes and the latest medical research can help identify areas for enhancement and ensure that diagnostic practices remain current and effective. Finally, realigning provider incentives within the workers’ compensation system can encourage healthcare providers to prioritize diagnostic accuracy. By offering financial rewards, reputation-based incentives, and professional development opportunities, providers are motivated to focus on accurate diagnosis and effective treatment planning, ultimately leading to better outcomes for injured workers. Conclusion Misdiagnosis in workers’ compensation is a critical issue often overlooked in research and practice. The consequences of misdiagnosis are far-reaching, affecting not only the health and recovery of injured workers but also the efficiency and integrity of the entire workers’ compensation system. Misdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate treatments, prolonged recovery times, unnecessary costs, and, most importantly, diminished trust in the healthcare process. By thoroughly understanding the factors that contribute to misdiagnosis, such as communication challenges, provider biases, and the limitations of the workers’ compensation framework, we can begin to address this pervasive issue. Recognizing the leading indicators of potential misdiagnosis, including inconsistent symptoms and unaddressed comorbidities, provides a proactive approach to identifying and correcting errors early in treatment. While the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 has increased specificity in diagnostic coding, it has also introduced new complexities that must be managed with care. Likewise, while technological advancements offer powerful tools for improving diagnostic accuracy, they also present challenges that require careful implementation and oversight. By adopting a multi-faceted approach that includes enhanced training for healthcare providers, better alignment of incentives, regular review of diagnostic protocols, and the thoughtful integration of technology and automation, we can work towards reducing the incidence of misdiagnosis in the workers’ compensation system. These efforts are essential for improving outcomes for injured workers and maintaining the credibility and efficiency of the workers’ compensation system. Addressing the issue of misdiagnosis in workers’ compensation requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders. By prioritizing diagnostic accuracy and making systemic changes to support this goal, we can create a more effective, fair, and reliable system that truly serves the needs of injured workers. References 1. Singh, H., Meyer, A. N., & Thomas, E. J. (2014). The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving U.S. adult populations. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(9), 727-731. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627 2. Shah, R. K., Edmonson, M. B., & Hebra, A. (2019). Diagnostic errors in pediatric hospitals: Project RedDE. BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(1), 50-57. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008209 3. McCrea, M. A., Broglio, S. P., McAllister, T. W., et al. (2017). Acute effects and recovery time following concussion in collegiate football players: The NCAA Concussion Study. JAMA Neurology, 74(8), 943-951. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.0593 4. Gatchel, R. J., Polatin, P. B., & Kishino, N. D. (2018). The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: Scientific advances and future directions. Psychological Science, 29(2), 10-15. doi:10.1177/0956797617707212 5. Liporace, F. A., Egol, K. A., Tejwani, N. C., Zuckerman, J. D., & Koval, K. J. (2013). What’s new in hip fractures? Current concepts. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 95(1), 27-33. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00772 6. Levin, H. S., Wilde, E. A., & Dennis, M. (2018). Traumatic brain injury in children: Rehabilitation and transition to home and school. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 33(3), 141-148. doi:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000350 7. Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005). Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(13), 1493-1499. doi:10.1001/architect.165.13.1493 8. Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008). Overconfidence is a cause of diagnostic errors in medicine. American Journal of Medicine, 121(5), S2-S23. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001 9. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 10. El-Kareh, R., Hasan, O., & Schiff, G. D. (2013). Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(ii), ii40-ii51. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001884 11. Thomson, R. M., & Murtagh, M. J. (2009). The diagnostic reasoning process: Re-envisioning diagnosis in general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 59(564), e229-e237. doi:10.3399/bjgp09X453459 12. Gawande, A. (2002). Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science. New York: Picador. 13. [1] Singh, H., et al. (2019). Diagnostic error rates among physician assistants and nurse practitioners. JAMA, 322(14), 1345-1353. 14. [2] Gottlieb, M., et al. (2020). Diagnostic accuracy of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in orthopedic trauma. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 34(5), 231-236. 15. [3] Weiss, J. P., et al. (2018). Diagnostic accuracy of primary care nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(10), 1733-1738. 16. [4] Muldoon, L., et al. (2020). Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy among physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, 33(10), 34-41. |
Skip to content