Errors In Death Certification Research Articles

Evaluation of Errors on Death Certificates.

Death certificates provide vital data for disease surveillance and health policy. However, errors are common globally, undermining data reliability. This study analyzed prevalence and types of errors in death certificates at a tertiary hospital in Nepal. A cross-sectional study reviewed all death certificates issued at Lumbini Medical College, Nepal from April 2020 to April 2022. Certificates were assessed for errors including improper sequencing, absent time intervals, abbreviations, illegible writing, and inaccurate immediate, antecedent, and underlying causes of death as per international guidelines. Errors were classified as major or minor. Of 139 certificates, none were error-free. The most common error was incorrectly or incompletely filling the immediate cause of death (77.7%). Other errors included absent time of death (17.3%), abbreviations (57.6%), illegible writing (22.3%), and omitting the hospital stamp/medical council registration number (8.6%). Based on international criteria, 76.3% had minor errors, 23% had both major and minor errors. This study found a high rate of errors in death certification at a tertiary hospital in Nepal, undermining data accuracy. Regular training and monitoring with feedback are recommended to improve certification practices. Accurate cause-of-death data is vital for healthcare policy and decision-making in Nepal.

Impact of an Educational Measure on the Quality of Medical Certificate of Cause of Death at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital: A Pre-post Interventional Study.

Background A death certificate is an important document that serves as a tool for gathering epidemiological data and as an essential legal document. Although it is a mandatory document to be given for all deaths, the quality of its filling is often an ignored aspect and errors are frequently encountered. This documentation process can be mastered with minimal educational efforts. This study aimed to determine the utility of an educational measurein improving the accuracy of death certificate documentation. Methods and materials This pre- and post-interventional study was conducted at Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, a tertiary care teaching hospital in Hisar, Haryana, India, wherein an audit of death certificates was done before and after an educational intervention on doctors responsible for filling death certificates. Errors in the death certificates were classified into major and minor errors and compared in the pre- and post-intervention groups. Results A total of 184 pre-intervention and 136 post-intervention death certificates were audited. In the pre-intervention certificates, at least one major and one minor error were present in 88% and 92.93% of the certificates, respectively, which was reduced to 33% (p < 0.01; relative risk (RR) = 3.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.69-4.91) and 38% (p < 0.01; RR = 3.33; 95% CI = 2.53-4.37), respectively, post-intervention. Reduction in all types of major and minor errors was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions Errors in death certification are a common but frequently ignored problem that can have a negative impact on epidemiological data and can be drastically reduced with simple educational measures, which need to be carried out regularly.

Frequency and types of errors in clinician-composed death certificates for patients with or without autopsy in a hospital population.

Death certificate (DC) errors are common. At our institution, all deaths have a preliminary death certificate (PDC) written by a clinician and then revised by a pathologist prior to the clinician signing the final death certificate (FDC). In autopsy cases, the FDC is signed by the pathologist who performs the autopsy. A total of 100 in-hospital deaths (50 with autopsy and 50 without) occurred in 2020 were arbitrarily selected from a tertiary care center. All PDCs and FDCs were compared to identify/classify errors as major (incorrect cause of death (COD) or significant contributing factors) or minor (abbreviations, inappropriate non-essential contributing factors, immediate/intermediate COD errors). Frequency of PDC errors was compared by autopsy status, duration of hospital stay and PDC author. Ninety percent of cases had at least one PDC error and 39% had a major error. Major errors were more common in autopsy cases (50% versus 28%, P=0.035), although minor/overall errors were not. Error rates did not significantly differ for the other variables assessed. There is significance of having a pathologist review and revise DCs before they are signed. The increased frequency in major errors in cases with autopsy suggests that autopsy findings provided additional information to elucidate COD.

Evaluation of errors in death certification by medical officers in an acute hospital.

To identify the frequency and types of errors in the Medical Certificate Cause of Death (MCCD) completed by hospital medical officers for deceased older patients. Among 127 deaths in a tertiary hospital acute geriatric unit between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022, a cause of death was documented for 116 patients (mean age 87.8, SD 5.7 years, 47% female, 39% from a nursing home). The MCCD was evaluated for errors as compared to national guidelines based on five criteria: mechanism without underlying cause; competing causes; improper sequencing; incomplete data; and use of abbreviations. The level of training of the documenting medical officer and whether the MCCD was completed out of usual working hours was evaluated with respect to errors. At least one error was present in 60 (52%) of the MCCD evaluated, and there were two or more errors in 16 (14%). Most commonly, documenting competing causes of death was found in 45 (39%) of all MCCD, followed by missing data (10%) and improper sequencing (9%). MCCDs were mostly completed by postgraduate year (PGY) 1 or 2 medical officers (78%) and out-of-hours (in 72%). There was no significant difference in frequency of errors between junior and senior medical officers (p = 0.52) or if it was completed within or out-of-hours (p = 0.14). The MCCD for deceased hospital patients often contained an error. Major improvement in the quality of death certification is needed among all medical officers.

Death certification errors in medical certificates of cause of death related to COVID-19 disease

Background: In the case of public health emergency scenarios, mortality surveillance done by analyzing medical certificates of cause of death (MCCDs) provides accurate morbidity and mortality data. Precise death certification in the novel coronavirus disease 2019 deaths is critical to understanding the magnitude and advancement of the pandemic. Inaccurate death certificates may cause underreporting or overwhelming reporting of COVID-19 deaths.Methods: The aim of the study was to analyse the MCCDs issued by the institute where the cause of death was attributed to or associated with the COVID-19 infection for certification errors. 729 MCCDs issued in COVID-19 deaths were audited primarily for their formal correctness and completeness and errors, using categories previously reported with some minor modifications. The study did not include analyzing the medical and hospital records of the deceased for the factual correctness of these MCCDs.Results: All types of major and minor certification errors were observed. Incomplete MCCDs were observed in 697 (95.61%) cases. 691 MCCDs (94.8%) were having either major or minor or both types of errors. Abbreviations were used in the MCCDs in 65.29% of cases while improper sequencing of the causes of death was observed in 52.92% of cases. Wrong terminologies like “COVID”, “COVID pneumonia”, “COVID +ve”, and “coronavirus” were used instead of the standard terminology.Conclusions: The lack of completeness and accuracy in writing the causes of death related to COVID-19 indicates a problem faced by the certifying doctors in analyzing them, especially in the early days of the pandemic.

Errors in pediatric death certificates issued in an emergency department

Purpose: Errors in pediatric death certificates (DCs) have been rarely reported. We analyzed the errors in writing the DCs issued in an emergency department (ED).Methods: The DCs issued at the ED to patients aged 18 years or younger were retrospectively analyzed. Their medical records were reviewed by 4 emergency physicians. Major and minor errors in the DCs were defined based on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th revision guidelines. The DCs were classified into the disease group and the external group by the manner of death, and the errors were compared. Results: Among a total of 87 DCs issued in the ED, 97.5% and 100% were confirmed to contain at least 1 error in the disease (n = 40) and external (n = 47) groups, respectively. The median numbers of errors in the analyzed DCs were 2.0 and 3.0 in the disease and external groups, respectively (P = 0.004). In the disease group, the most frequent major error was reporting only a secondary condition as the underlying cause of death without antecedent causes (6 cases [15.0%]). In the external group, the most frequent major error was writing 2 or more causes in a single line for the cause of death (17 cases [36.2%]). In both groups, the most common minor error was omission of a time interval record for the cause of death (disease, 37 cases [92.5%]; external, 42 cases [89.4%]).Conclusion: Any errors were identified in 98.9% of pediatric DCs issued in the ED, and the total number of errors was larger in the external group.

Factors associated with the reporting of Down syndrome as the underlying cause of death on US death certificates.

Efforts aimed at preventing premature mortality for people with Down syndrome are hindered by the practice of reporting disability as the underlying cause of death. Prior research suggests this form of diagnostic overshadowing may be the result of increased uncertainty surrounding the death. This study uses bivariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression models to investigate associations between sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and death context and processing characteristics with the reporting of Down syndrome as the underlying cause of death in 2005-2017 US Multiple Cause of Death data files. The reporting of Down syndrome as the underlying cause of death was associated with characteristics indicative of an increased amount of uncertainty surrounding the death. Results also suggest other mechanisms may inform inaccurate reporting, such as racial bias, and the continued conflation of disability and health. Medical personnel certifying death certificates should strive for accuracy when reporting the causes of death. To ensure this outcome, even in the midst of increased uncertainty, Down syndrome should not be reported as the underlying cause of death unless the decedent was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or unspecified dementia. Future research should further explore the possibility that increased death certification errors for adults with Down syndrome, or other developmental disabilities, are associated with racial bias.

Errors of Death Certificate for Poisoning Related Death

Purpose: This study examines errors in death certificates (DCs) issued to cases of poisoning. Methods: DCs issued in poisoning cases were retrospectively reviewed. Errors in the DC were classified as major and minor errors, and were evaluated in accordance with their impact on the process of selecting the cause of death (COD). Results: A total of 79 DCs were evaluated; 43 (54.4%) DCs were issued in the emergency department (ED), and 36 (45.6%) DCs were issued outside the ED. The average major and minor errors per DC were determined to be 0.4 and 3.3, respectively. Moreover, an average of 3.0 errors were discovered in DCs issued at the ED, and 4.4 errors in DCs issued outside the ED. The most common major errors were incorrect manner of death (11.4%, 9/79), followed by unacceptable COD (7.6%, 6/79), and the mode of dying as an underlying COD (5.1%, 4/79). The common minor errors most frequently encountered were incorrect time interval (86.1%, 68/79), followed by incorrect other significant conditions (73.4%, 58/79), and no record for date of onset (62.0%, 49/79). Conclusion: Our results indicate that the total numbers of major errors, minor errors and cases of misjudged cause of death were greater in DCs issued outside the ED than in DCs issued at the ED. The most frequently quoted major error of DCs related to poisoning was determined to be the incorrect manner of death.

Autopsy Service Death Certificate Review.

Despite the importance of accurate death statistics for epidemiologic studies and public health initiatives, there remains a high frequency of errors in death certification. This deficiency can be addressed by the hospital autopsy service. To improve the quality and accuracy of death certificates issued in the hospital and improve resident and clinician education by initiating a death certificate review process, performed by pathology residents while on their hospital autopsy rotation. A resident reviewed all death certificates issued in the hospital daily through the state electronic death certificate filing system and correlated with the decedent's medical record. When errors were found, the resident filed an amended death certificate with the state. If applicable, the Office of the Medical Examiner was contacted to investigate. The original certifying physician was then contacted via email with an explanation for the amendment. In 12 months, 590 death certificates were issued by the hospital. Eighty-eight of 590 (15%) were amended. Of those 88 amended, 41 (47%) were missing an underlying cause of death, 7 (8%) had an inaccurate cause of death, 41 (47%) failed to include relevant contributory causes of death, and 17 (19%) had major typographic errors. Of 88, 24 (27%) fell under the Office of the Medical Examiner's jurisdiction and were reported with a subsequent change in the manner of death in 23 of 88 cases (26%). Death certificate review by the autopsy service improves the accuracy of death certification, impacts resident and clinician education, and serves as quality assurance for both the hospital and the state.

Death Certification in Northern Alberta: Error Occurrence Rate and Educational Intervention.

Errors in death certification can directly affect the decedent's survivors and the public register. We assessed the effectiveness of an educational seminar targeting frequent and important errors identified by local death certificate (DC) evaluation. Retrospective review of 1500 DCs categorized errors and physician specialty. A 60-minute didactic/case-based seminar was subsequently designed for family medicine physician (FAM) participants, with administration of presurvey, immediate post, and 2-month postsurveys. Most DCs were completed by FAM (73%), followed by internists (18%) and surgeons (3%). Error occurrence (EO) rate ranged between 32 and 75% across all specialities. Family medicine physician experienced in palliative care had the lowest EO rate (32%), significantly lower (P < 0.001) than FAM without interest in palliative care (62%), internal medicine (62%), and surgery (75%). Common errors were use of abbreviations (26%), mechanism as underlying cause of death (23%), and no underlying cause of death recorded (22%). Presurvey participants (n = 72) had an overall EO rate of 72% (64% excluding formatting errors). Immediate postsurvey (n = 75) and 2-month postsurvey (n = 24) participants demonstrated significantly lower overall EO (34% and 24%, respectively), compared with the Pre-S (P < 0.05). A 60-minute seminar on death certification reduced EO rate with perceived long-term effects.

Death Certification: Errors and Interventions.

Death certificates are legal documents containing critical information. Despite the importance of accurate certification, errors remain common. Estimates of error prevalence vary between studies, and error classification systems are often unclear. Relatively few studies have assessed the frequency at which death certification errors occur in US hospitals, and even fewer have attempted a standardized classification of errors based on their severity. In the current study, our objective was to evaluate the frequency of death certification errors at an academic center, implement a standardized method of categorizing error severity, and analyze sources of error to better identify ways to improve death certification accuracy. We retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of cause and manner of death certification at our regional academic institution for 179 cases in which autopsy was performed between 2013-2016. We compared non-pathologist physician completed death certificates with the cause and manner of death ultimately determined at autopsy. Errors were classified via a 5-point scale of increasing error severity. Grades I-IIc were considered minor errors, while III-V were considered severe. Sources of error were analyzed. In the majority of cases (85%), death certificates contained ≥ one error, with multiple errors (51%) being more common than single (33%). The most frequent error type was Grade 1 (53%), followed by Grade III (30%), and Grade IIb (18%). The more severe Grade IV errors were seen in 23% of cases; no Grade V errors were found. No amendments were made to any death certificates following finalization of autopsy results during the study period. This study reaffirms the importance of autopsy and autopsy pathologists in ensuring accurate and complete death certification. It also suggests that death certification errors may be more frequent than previously reported. We propose a method by which death certification errors can be classified in terms of increasing severity. By understanding the types of errors occurring on death certificates, academic institutions can work to improve certification accuracy. Better clinician education, coordination with autopsy pathologists, and implementation of a systematic approach to ensuring concordance of death certificates with autopsy results is recommended.

Quality of external post-mortem examination and death certificates at the University Hospital in Hamburg, Germany

The quality of external post-mortem examinations and medical death certificates has long been criticized and autopsy rates are on the decline. To identify potential errors in external post-mortem examinations and hospital death certificates, this study examined the quality of information provided regarding both aspects at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). Among the 630 patients who died at the UKE during a period of 5 months in 2017, the post-mortem findings and death certificates of 511 were re-examined. Furthermore, for 419 deceased patients where a forensic autopsy was carried out at the UKE from 2008 to 2016, the clinical data were compared with the autopsy results. For 77 (15%) of the decedents, the second external post-mortem examination produced relevant findings that had not been previously reported on the death certificates. This included information regarding relevant medical interventions (9%), significant disorders (5%), and trauma (2%). Formal errors were rarely found on the death certificates. In 62% the cause of death and underlying disorders stated in the death certificates were in full agreement with the diagnoses identified at autopsy. Nonconformities were identified in 10%. The quality of external post-mortem examinations and medical death certificates should be improved. It is evident that autopsies are indispensable for verifying the cause of death.

Saving lives through certifying deaths: assessing the impact of two interventions to improve cause of death data in Per\xfa

BackgroundMortality statistics derived from cause of death data are an important source of information for population health monitoring, priority setting and planning. In Perú, almost all death certificates are issued by doctors because it is a legal requirement. However, the quality of cause of death data is poor. In August 2016, the Ministry of Health of Perú decided to make two specific interventions to improve cause of death data: to introduce an online death certification system and to train doctors in standard death certification practices.MethodsThe study comprised a random sample of 300 pre-intervention death certificates, 900 death certificates that were part of the online intervention, and 900 death certificates that were part of both the online and training interventions. All the deaths had occurred between January and September 2017. We used the Assessing the quality of death certification tool from the University of Melbourne for the assessment. We examined the frequency of common errors in death certificates, the frequency of any error and the average error score for each category of: age group, sex, doctor’s seniority, doctor’s speciality, level of health facility and broad cause of death.ResultsThe average error score declined by 38% due to the online intervention and by a further 26% due to the training intervention. Improved certification practices remained after controlling for potentially confounding factors. Main improvements were reductions in the absence of a time interval (66% of certificates), incorrect sequence of causes (22%), and ill-defined conditions (13%).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates how the two interventions introduced by the Ministry of Health in Perú improved the correctness of death certificates. The study also provides evidence on necessary changes to the training program to address the poor certification practices that have remained after implementation of the online system.

Death Certification Errors and the Effect on Mortality Statistics.

Errors in cause and manner of death on death certificates are common and affect families, mortality statistics, and public health research. The primary objective of this study was to characterize errors in the cause and manner of death on death certificates completed by non-Medical Examiners. A secondary objective was to determine the effects of errors on national mortality statistics. We retrospectively compared 601 death certificates completed between July 1, 2015, and January 31, 2016, from the Vermont Electronic Death Registration System with clinical summaries from medical records. Medical Examiners, blinded to original certificates, reviewed summaries, generated mock certificates, and compared mock certificates with original certificates. They then graded errors using a scale from 1 to 4 (higher numbers indicated increased impact on interpretation of the cause) to determine the prevalence of minor and major errors. They also compared International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes on original certificates with those on mock certificates. Of 601 original death certificates, 319 (53%) had errors; 305 (51%) had major errors; and 59 (10%) had minor errors. We found no significant differences by certifier type (physician vs nonphysician). We did find significant differences in major errors in place of death ( P < .001). Certificates for deaths occurring in hospitals were more likely to have major errors than certificates for deaths occurring at a private residence (59% vs 39%, P < .001). A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code. Error rates on death certificates in Vermont are high and extend to ICD-10 coding, thereby affecting national mortality statistics. Surveillance and certifier education must expand beyond local and state efforts. Simplifying and standardizing underlying literal text for cause of death may improve accuracy, decrease coding errors, and improve national mortality statistics.

Impact of an educational intervention on errors in death certification: An observational study from the intensive care unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital

Background:A high incidence of errors occur while filling up death certificates in hospitals. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of an educational intervention on errors in death certification in an intensive care unit (ICU). Patients admitted to ICUs by virtue of being critically ill have a higher mortality than other hospitalized patients. This study was designed to see if any improvement could be brought about in filling death certificates.Materials and Methods:Educating sessions, interactive workshops, and monthly audits for the department resident doctors were conducted. One hundred and fifty death certificates were audited for major and minor errors (75 before and 75 after the educational intervention) over a period of 18 months. Fisher's exact test was applied to statistically analyze the data.Results:There was a significant decrease in major errors like mechanism without underlying cause of death (60.0 vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), competing causes (88.0 vs. 13.3%, P < 0.001), and improper sequencing (89.3 vs. 36.0%, P < 0.001). There was also a significant decrease in minor errors such as use of abbreviations (89.3 vs. 29.3%, P < 0.001) and no time intervals (100.0 vs. 22.6%, P < 0.001).Conclusion:Authors conclude that death certification errors can be significantly reduced by educational interventional programs.

Errors in Filling WHO Death Certificate in Children: Lessons from 1251 Death Certificates

Our objective was to identify the frequency and types of various pediatric death certification errors. All available death certificates (n = 1424, from January to December 2005 and from January to July 2007) were retrieved from medical record library in a tertiary pediatric hospital. These were analyzed retrospectively (66%) and prospectively (34%) for the year 2005 and 2007, respectively. Only 11% of death certificates were filled accurately. In the remaining 89%, the total number of errors ranged from 0-5 per death certificate. The most common major and minor errors were "improper sequencing" (50.3%) and "absence of time interval" (74.7%), respectively. The combination of major and minor errors was observed in 51.9% of the certificates. The frequency of errors was significantly less in prospective data as compared with retrospective data (p < 0.05). Given the high rate of errors, there is an urgent need to design relevant training programs to streamline this dismal situation.

Death certification: issues and interventions

A review of the literature suggests that errors in death certification are common. We reviewed the published literature to clarify what is known and what remains to be learned before evidence-based changes in medical education can be recommended. We searched the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database for articles that addressed death certificate accuracy and identified 159 articles of interest published from 1996 to 2010. Among these 159 articles, we found 83 that were relevant to our goals and objectives. Cause of death certification has been shown to be problematic and several interventions have been shown to improve its accuracy, especially if the intervention is interactive. However these studies have focused on short term gains rather than on long term retention and performance, leaving a significant data gap. We suggest a study design that could address this data gap.

Death Certification Errors at an Academic Institution

The correctly completed death certificate provides invaluable personal, epidemiologic, and legal information and should be thorough and accurate. Death certification errors are common and range from minor to severe. To determine the frequency and type of errors by nonpathologist physicians at a university-affiliated medical center. Fifty random patients were identified who died at this academic medical center between January 2002 and December 2003 and did not undergo an autopsy. From medical chart review, clinical summaries were produced. Two pathologists used these summaries to create mock death certificates. The original and mock death certificates were then compared to identify errors in the original certificate. Errors were graded on a I to IV scale, with grade IV being the most severe. Of the 50 death certificates reviewed, grade I, II, and III errors were noted in 72%, 32%, and 30%, respectively. Seventeen certificates (34%) had grade IV errors (wrong cause or manner of death). Multiple errors were identified in 82% of the death certificates reviewed. The rate of major (grade IV) death certification errors at this academic setting is high and is consistent with major error rates reported by other academic institutions. We attribute errors to house staff inexperience, fatigue, time constraints, unfamiliarity with the deceased, and perceived lack of importance of the death certificate. To counter these factors, we recommend a multifaceted approach, including an annual course in death certification and discussion of the death certificate for each deceased patient during physician rounds. These measures should result in increased accuracy of this important document.

Death certification errors at an academic institution.

Abstract Context.—The correctly completed death certificate provides invaluable personal, epidemiologic, and legal information and should be thorough and accurate. Death certification errors are common and range from minor to severe. Objective.—To determine the frequency and type of errors by nonpathologist physicians at a university-affiliated medical center. Design.—Fifty random patients were identified who died at this academic medical center between January 2002 and December 2003 and did not undergo an autopsy. From medical chart review, clinical summaries were produced. Two pathologists used these summaries to create mock death certificates. The original and mock death certificates were then compared to identify errors in the original certificate. Errors were graded on a I to IV scale, with grade IV being the most severe. Results.—Of the 50 death certificates reviewed, grade I, II, and III errors were noted in 72%, 32%, and 30%, respectively. Seventeen certificates (34%) had grade IV errors (wrong ca...

Diversity in death certification: A case vignette approach

Previous studies have revealed high rates of errors in death certification, but few have discussed the nature of these errors. To explore the diversity among physicians in death certification and its relationship with the complexity of the causal sequence of death, we asked 145 physicians attending a continuing medical education course to complete the cause-of-death section on dummy death certificates of four case vignettes. The difficulty in determining the causal sequence of death varied from relatively simple to complex. Variations in death certification were classified according to wording, diagnostic semantics, combinations of expressions, correctness of certification format, and concordance with the referent underlying cause of death (UCOD). Given the same case history information, physicians showed great variation in wording and diagnostic semantics in death certification. The rates of correct certification format and concordance with referent UCOD varied with the level of complexity of the causal sequence of death. The greatest source of diversity was choosing between an acute condition of a chronic disease and the chronic disease itself, and between competing prominent comorbidities. Experience in death certification was significantly associated with correct certification format but not with concordance with referent UCOD. Knowledge of death certification was not associated with correct certification format or concordance with referent UCOD. Our findings indicate that the traditional concept of UCOD tabulation and using a single standard ICD code in evaluating the quality of death certification oversimplifies a complex situation. Variations in death certification, especially the selection of UCOD, were due to differences in interpreting the information rather than differences in knowledge of death certification.