Cited by 23Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHead and Neck Cancer StudiesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Diagnostic Delays and Errors in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: Opportunities for Improvement

Franco, Joel, Elghouche, Alhasan N., Harris, Michael S., Kokoska, Mimi S.·2017·American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract

A retrospective review of 100 sequential patients (2009-2012) with head and neck cancer was performed to determine the frequency of 5 types of diagnostic delays and errors outlined by the Institute of Medicine. There were a total of 105 diagnostic delays/errors. The most common was delay in being seen in the otolaryngology clinic after referral placement (28.6%), followed by diagnostic error by the referring physician (22%), delay in referral of a symptomatic patient to the otolaryngology clinic (16.2%), delay in employing an appropriate diagnostic test or procedure (15.2%), delay in action following reporting of pathology or imaging results for an incidental lesion (11.4%), diagnostic error by the otolaryngology clinic (2.8%), delay in action following reporting of pathology or imaging results for the symptomatic lesion (2.8%), and use of outmoded tests or therapy (1%). Increased awareness of these types of delays/errors will direct actions and processes to reduce or eliminate them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1062860616638413

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Diagnostic error research has primarily focused on capturing disease-related factors, including laboratory results, imaging, and treatments, which are easier to extract from medical records.

    “Diagnostic error research has primarily focused on capturing disease-related factors [18,19,20,21], including laboratory results, imaging, and treatments, which are easier to extract from medical records.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franco, J., Elghouche, A. N., Harris, M. S., & Kokoska, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Saint Louis University (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • Aurora Health Care (US)
Corresponding author
Franco, Joel
Venue
American Journal of Medical Quality
Published
2016-03-30
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
330-335
ISSN
  • 1062-8606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-824X
OpenAlex
W2321038174
Cited by
23
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Medical Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
head and neck cancer, delayed diagnosis, diagnostic errors, otolaryngology referral, late referral, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Errors, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Otolaryngology, Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Delayed Diagnosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review