Evaluation of the efficiency of the expert medical decision making system in diagnosis acute appendicitis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Relevance. Timely diagnosis is the basic criterion for the quality of medical care in emergency department. One of the promising directions in the prevention of diagnostic errors is the use in clinical practice of the expert decision support system (EDSS). The aim of this study was a comparative analysis of the diagnostic efficiency of EDSS in acute appendicitis (AA) at various stages of the differential diagnosis of acute abdominal pain (AAP). Materials and methods. The study performed a retrospective analysis of the diagnostic results of 150 patients with various forms of AA, followed by the processing of structured clinical, laboratory and instrumental data using the original version of EDSS. Results and Discussion. It has been established that EDSS unidirectionally and sequentially models the stages of a standard diagnostic program for examining a patient with AAP at all levels of automated assessment of symptoms and signs of AA. Depending on the final parameters of the indication, the EDSS makes it possible to differentiate the variants of AA clinical scenarios with the identification of categories of diagnostic complexity that occurred in surgical practice. The data of relevance and validity of EDSS in the differential diagnosis of AAP are presented. The role of the expert system for the intensification of the doctor’s clinical reasoning and the prevention of diagnostic errors in emergency abdominal surgery is noted. Conclusion. The data obtained indicate a comparable diagnostic efficiency of the proposed version of EDSS with the accuracy of the diagnosis of a surgeon. The results of the preclinical use of EDSS allow the clinician to recommend its use in the format of an interactive “cognitive assistant” in case of possible difficulties and doubts in the differential diagnosis of AAP.

About the authors

Slavomir Z. Burnevich

City Clinical Hospital named after V.V. Vinogradov

Author for correspondence.
Email: burnslavomir@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3427-4483
SPIN-code: 7831-2673
Moscow, Russian Federation

Nikita S. Maslenko

City Clinical Hospital named after V.V. Vinogradov

Email: burnslavomir@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-4034-8767
Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Rodziewicz TL, Houseman B, Hipskind JE. Medical Error Reduction and Prevention. [Updated 2022 Dec 4]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2023 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499956/
  2. Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22 Suppl 2: ii21-ii27. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012–001615.
  3. Eames J, Eisenman A, Schuster RJ. Disagreement between emergency department admission diagnosis and hospital discharge diagnosis: mortality and morbidity. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016;3(1):23–30. doi: 10.1515/dx-2015–0028.
  4. Newman-­Toker DE, Peterson SM, Badihian S, Hassoon A, Nassery N, Parizadeh D. et al. Diagnostic errors in the emergency department: a systematic review [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). 2022 Dec. Report No.: 22(23)-EHC043.
  5. Holstine JB, Samora JB. Reducing surgical specimen errors through multidisciplinary quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021 Sep;47(9):563–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.04.003.
  6. Pan HM, Li HL, Shen ZS, Guo H, Zhao Q, Li JG. Observation of the effectiveness of a diagnostic model for acute abdominal pain based on the etiology checklist and process thinking. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:835–845. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S295142.
  7. Bokemeyer A, Ochs K, Fuhrmann V. Akutes abdomen: diagnostik [Acute abdomen: diagnostic management]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2020;145(21):1544–1551. German. doi: 10.1055/a–1007–4264.
  8. Savelyev. V.S. Guidelines for emergency surgery of the abdominal organs: A guide for doctors. MIA. 2014. 544 p. [In Russian].
  9. Harada T, Watari T, Watanuki S, Hiroshige J, Kushiro S, Miyagami T. et al. Diagnostic error rates and associated factors for lower gastrointestinal perforation. Sci. Rep. 2022;12(1):1028. doi: 10.1038/s41598–021–04762-y.
  10. Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:17. doi: 10.1038/s41746–020–0221-y.
  11. Faqar-­Uz-­Zaman SF, Anantharajah L, Baumartz P, Sobotta P, Filmann N, Zmuc D, von Wagner M, Detemble C, Sliwinski S, Marschall U, Bechstein WO, Schnitzbauer AA. The Diagnostic Efficacy of an App-based Diagnostic Health Care Application in the Emergency Room: eRadaR-Trial. A prospective, Double-­blinded, Observational Study. Ann Surg. 2022;276(5):935–942. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005614.
  12. Gowda NR, Kumar A, Arya SK, H V. The information imperative: to study the impact of informational discontinuity on clinical decision making among doctors. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12911–020–01190–2.
  13. Wallace W, Chan C, Chidambaram S, Hanna L, Iqbal FM, Acharya A, Normahani P, Ashrafian H, Markar SR, Sounderajah V, Darzi A. The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):118. doi: 10.1038/s41746–022–00667-w.
  14. Baker A, Perov Y, Middleton K, Baxter J, Mullarkey D, Sangar D, Butt M, DoRosario A, Johri S. A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Doctors for the Purpose of Triage and Diagnosis. Front Artif Intell. 2020;3:543405. doi: 10.3389/frai.2020.543405.
  15. Burnevich S.Z., Soloviev D.A., Orlov B.B., Vatsik-­Gorodetskaya M.V., Nikolaev A.P., Filimonov M.I. Evaluation of the effectiveness of an expert diagnostic system in acute disorders of the mesenteric circulation. Physician and information technology. 2021;4:46–57. doi: 10.25881/18110193_2021_4_46. [In Russian].
  16. National clinical guidelines. Acute appendicitis in adults. Moscow. 2020. 45 p. [In Russian].
  17. Mahajan P, Basu T, Pai CW, Singh H, Petersen N, Bellolio MF, Gadepalli SK, Kamdar NS. Factors Associated With Potentially Missed Diagnosis of Appendicitis in the Emergency Department. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3): e200612. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0612.
  18. Sauter TC, Capaldo G, Hoffmann M, Birrenbach T, Hautz SC, Kämmer JE, Exadaktylos AK, Hautz WE. Non-specific complaints at emergency department presentation result in unclear diagnoses and lengthened hospitalization: a prospective observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s13049–018–0526-x.
  19. Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, Ilgen JS, Schmidt HG, Mamede S. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med. 2017; 92(1):23–30. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001421.
  20. Schmidt HG, Mamede S. Improving diagnostic decision support through deliberate reflection: a proposal. Diagnosis (Berl). 2022;10(1):38–42. doi: 10.1515/dx-2022–0062.
  21. Pelaccia T, Forestier G, Wemmert C. Deconstructing the diagnostic reasoning of human versus artificial intelligence. CMAJ. 2019;191(48): E1332-E1335. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190506.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Fig. 1. Screenshot of the EDSS display on one of the cycles (disease history) of processing the parameters of a patient with acute appendicitis

Download (120KB)
Indexing metadata
2. Fig. 2. Screenshot of the EDSS display with the results of processing the parameters of a patient with acute appendicitis in the form of a rating of probable diagnoses

Download (142KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2023 Burnevich S.Z., Maslenko N.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies