This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Medical error article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Useful links (non encyclopaedic) chat at the BMJ
Think of a number and double it? The first sentence of this article is one of the worst I have seen in Wkipedia, namely "In the United States medical error results in 44 000-98 000 unnecessary deaths each year...." What? Doesn't anyone actually have even a reasonable estimate? The 98,000 figure is 222 per cent higher that the 44,000 figure. We are saying that in 1990 (example) there were between 44 000 and 98 000 unnecessary deaths, and in 1981 there were between 44 000 and 98 000 unnecessary deaths. How can we exect Wikipedia to be taken seriously with such ballpark figures. Moriori (Sorry, forgot to sign).
dude. check the ref. Erich 04:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There are no exact numbers on this because the numbers I have seen are all estimates based on extrapolations. That's right - the data is not good. And that the data is no good is even more alarming! Kd4ttc 19:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I prefer to quote peer-reviewed academic journals rather than anonymous web-sources.
Listen, feel free to improve the article if you like. This is a draft article on an important topic. I am a bit stunned by your comments "demonstrably lacking in integrity " and "doing Wikipedia a great disservice". Your reference goes on to clarify that the 80000 infections are also due to error. I've had a look at your contribs to try to understand your perspective, but still stunned really. Anyway if you like please have a look at the quoted refs from the peer-reviewed academic journals and feel free to help us knock of the rough edges of this article. cheers Erich 00:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have to admit that I agree with person complaining that the avation comparison is irrelevant. What pilot ever jumps on a plane that is already crashing toward the ground, then given the blame when it hits the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.131.218 ( talk • contribs)
I added a link to the first paragraph of the article (reference #1) for the on-line version of the 2000 Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human. This report led to the media quoting the 44,000 to 98,000 deaths yearly. As the Executive Summary section report, this was based on two studies (one in Utah and Colorado and one from New York) which were extrapolated to estimate total US mortality by multiplying by the number of hospital admissions. Unfortunately, the links to the references are dead, so we can't examine these studies themselves. (It might be possible to find them elsewhere; I'll try). In any case, the wide range of these estimates derives from the math; two different studies, and amplifying the data to millions of hospitalizations. Not that the point is diminished; a single avoidable death is a tragedy. -- Ryanjo 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have inserted book by Banya. Medical narcissism is an area that needs to be covered.-- Penbat 08:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should be merged with medical malpractice. Comments? -- FP (talk) (edits) 10:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Quote from the article: "Humans are notorious for ignoring maintenance schedules and for non-compliance, while airplanes are not". Ahahaha, SO funny. :D 89.155.97.17 ( talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added this to the see also section because patients with these diagnosis are often misdiagnosed with other illnesses. ResearchEditor ( talk) 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has a "Neutrality disputed" tag from December 2007 which refers to a discusion on this page. I can find no discusion addressing this tag. And so will soon remove the tag as it appears not to be a current concern. others? SmithBlue ( talk) 07:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, remove tag. Ryanjo ( talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering why the entire book section was recently removed.
I put the iatrogenesis link in the article. Unlike Medical malpractice I think there is a case for a merger between the 2 articles. I won't make or push that case however. FWIW, TIME Magazine quotes 90,000 annual US deaths from medical error in the article [ [4]] on Peter Pronovost as one of the 100 most influential people in the world - No wikipedia article on him?! I have checked the spelling. Smallbones ( talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I will soon sit in front of an inquiry commission on diagnostic errors in Pathology and have been thinking a lot about this. In the mind of a pathologist, an error is not synonymous with a mistake. Here is how I see it:
This difference is very important when a professional is facing disciplinary action. Yet, it is not understood by most and is not clearly spelled out in dictionaries. What do you think? Can you find a reliable source explaining this? Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Our study emphasises the need for designing safer systems for care which protect the patient from the inevitability of human error. These systems should provide new policies and protocols and technological support to aid the cognitive activities of clinicians. [6]
This magazine article might be an accessible source that interests some readers. It focuses on the difficulty of measuring errors. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Healthcare error seems to deal with the same subject. Medical error is the most prevalent term in Google with a 12x higher number of hits. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 08:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a separate article on Preventable medical error is needed, as medical error, in itself, is implied to be preventable, sometimes even being a part of its definition, as in its current article. The text in Preventable medical error appears to be equivalent to the sections Impact, Causes and Approaches to error in Medical error and should be merged to there. If the length of the article would ever require it to be forked, I think it should rather be forked into Prevention and something like Handling with errors once happened. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
In the deletion proposal for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm, it is being said that Iatrogenesis and Medical error are the same thing, and that "medical error" is the best layman term for "iatrogenesis". If that is so, then these articles should merge. Supporting evidence of this presented in that discussion as provided by SW3 5DL are the following:
In these sources, medical error and iatrogenic problems seem to be equivalent. It seems that the term "iatrogenesis" was only recently popularized, and when it was, a particular doctor tried to give it a meaning more nuanced than anyone actually adopted, and it does seem to me that the common usage of iatrogenesis is to mean medical error despite some small amount of usage otherwise. Related, the proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical harm is also suggesting that Medical harm is best understood to mean medical error/iatrogenesis. MelanieN has said that iatrogenesis and medical error are not the same, and my initial thought was this also before seeing what SW3 5DL shared, but no distinction has yet been made to differentiate these two. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
|
I forgot that I already began this discussion at Talk:Iatrogenesis#Merge_of_Iatrogenesis_and_medical_error. I copied all this content there, and the discussion should happen there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
New source that may be a good addition here: http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:5825:265:E234:AE34 ( talk) 21:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medical error. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/1999/To-Err-is-Human/To%20Err%20is%20Human%201999%20%20report%20brief.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The sources does not seem to support the claim under Competency Education and Training, first sentence number 34 resource is from 1991 and is based on a questionnaire at one facility, questioning if it is really a reliable source? I think it needs to be updated or removed as it refers to one facility and is not backed by other studies. TLund ( talk) 17:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I was reading this article and evaluating its citations. The frequency seemed adequate; there were more than one citations in each paragraph. However, there were more than a few cases of close paraphrasing which should be edited to avoid plagiarism. I also noticed that in the "Impact" section of your article, in the third paragraph, the author addresses the views of "some researchers" which should be elaborated upon in order to make it less vague and therefore, a stronger article. Shilpaus76 ( talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)shilpaus76
This article seems to cover quite a bit of reasoning behind the causes of medical error, but certain sections need to be expanded on. Under the Causes section, Healthcare Complexity states that prolonged hospital stays, drugs, and technology can contribute to errors but in what ways? I think it would benefit the reader to have this expanded upon. Most of the sections under Causes could benefit from some clarification and expansion to accurately represent all view points of this topic. Also, many of the sources are over 5 years old, some even 10 years. This article could benefit from source updating since prevention of medical error is a popular topic in healthcare now. Alliacev ( talk) 01:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medical error. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there's little discussion of technology in this article. Technology can both create medical error (e.g., bugs in EHR software) and prevent medical error. This article A millionaire’s mission: Stop hospitals from killing their patients by medical error (2017) discusses a technology company which may be trying to help prevent errors. In addition, the idea behind decision support system and AI is to reduce medical error, but can of course also increase it... II | ( t - c) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Added following portion
Delayed sleep phase disorder is often confused with: psychophysiological insomnia; depression; psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, ADHD or ADD; other sleep disorders; or school refusal. Practitioners of sleep medicine point out the dismally low rate of accurate diagnosis of the disorder, and have often asked for better physician education on sleep disorders. [1]
Cluster headaches are often misdiagnosed, mismanaged, or undiagnosed for many years; they may be confused with migraine, "cluster-like" headache (or mimics), CH subtypes, other TACs ( trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias), or other types of primary or secondary headache syndrome. [2] Cluster-like head pain may be diagnosed as secondary headache rather than cluster headache. [3] Under-recognition of CH by health care professionals is reflected in consistent findings in Europe and the United States that the average time to diagnosis is around seven years. [4]
Asperger and Autism tend to get undiagnosed or delayed recognition and delayed diagnosis, [5] [6] or misdiagnosed. [7] Delayed or mistaken diagnosis can be traumatic for individuals and families; for example, misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior., [8] [9]
2405:204:4313:D858:55AE:1695:FFA7:219F (
talk) 13:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Vliet
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IHS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tfelt-Hansen2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Misdiagnosis of very common physical illness including infectious diseases are sometimes frequently misdiagnosed. Such as various disease showing symptom of fever; such as malaria, hepatitis, typhoid, paratyphoid, influenza can look confusingly similar, and getting a correct diagnosis could be a long loop due to atypical symptoms. Have experienced physical intrusions in E/N/T was mistaken as tumour by very large number (about ten or more) doctors it is because all these doctors were thinking "in the box". And if a person has somewhat uncommon disorder, misdiagnosis is quite inevitable.
2405:204:4313:D858:55AE:1695:FFA7:219F ( talk) 13:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Erich gasboy:["For example, if a doctor fails to order a mammogram that is past due, this mistake will not show up in the first type of study. [1] In addition, because no adverse event occurred during the short follow-up of the study, the mistake also would not show up in the second type of study [2] because only the principal treatment plans were critiqued. However, the mistake would be recorded in the third type of study. If a doctor recommends an unnecessary treatment or test, it may not show in any of these types of studies."]I find the cited references not helpful for me(sorry). I'm now working on the translation into traditional Chinese. Thanks in advance.
ThomasYehYeh ( talk) 10:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
References
In the section with this title a statement is made "in the U.S. legibility of handwritten prescriptions has been indirectly responsible for at least 7,000 deaths annually.[83]"
On reading the cited reference, "APPEAL NO. 991681 Texas v. Dr. K" (PDF). Retrieved April 16, 2020. I find nothing to support that statement. I think this reference should not be cited in this section. Gnuarm ( talk) 03:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the warning label. I did some work re-organizing the article and also improved the prevention section (please feel free to add to it and continue to improve!). I also tried to organize the US information into US-specific subheadings. I think the article could still very much benefit from more international evidence, however, I wonder what the community thinks about removing this warning. Let me know what you think! The label was placed in 2010.
JenOttawa ( talk) 16:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the UK segment under the subheading "Impacts", the data is about US hospitals not UK hospitals the attached reference shows this.
I didn't want to move it myself as it would leave the UK section a stub and bloat the US section.
Pluxxus (
talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)