The Definition and Scope of Diagnostic Error in the US and How Diagnostic Error Is Enabled
Abstract
Background: The quality of healthcare in the US has been progressively addressed by 3 reports from the National Academy of Medicine, the latest of which, entitled “Improving Diagnosis in Health Care,” was issued in 2015 from a 21-member panel (the author of this report was a member). The report is a review of the longstanding problem of diagnostic error. The infrastructure of healthcare delivery in the US has inadvertently made diagnostic error a major contributor to the high cost of care and preventable poor patient outcomes. Content: This review describes the failures in US healthcare delivery that have led to the overwhelming number of deaths attributable to diagnostic error. Each failure is associated with recommendations to eliminate it. The review begins with a description of the scope of the diagnostic error problem and then discusses each of the issues that need to be addressed to reduce the number of misdiagnoses. Summary: The problem of diagnostic error in the US is a large one. Some the contributing factors to this large problem can be resolved at a small expense and with modest change; others require a major overhaul of aspects of medical practice. For the first time, Americans have a “to-do list” to reduce our diagnostic error problem and be on par with other developed countries that are recognized as providing less costly care with better patient outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 is a critical and prevalent issue in healthcare, posing major threats to patient safety and national healthcare costs and leading to significant harm, including preventable deaths.
“Diagnostic error is a critical and prevalent issue in healthcare, posing major threats to patient safety and national healthcare costs [1,2] and leading to significant harm, including preventable deaths [3].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Laposata, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Laposata, Michael
- ORCID
- Laposata, Michael
- Venue
- The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-07-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 128-134
- ISSN
- 2475-7241 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2797714477
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Keywords
- diagnostic errors, misdiagnosis, quality of care, patient outcomes, health care costs, diagnostic error prevention, United States health care system
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