It is well known that diagnostic accuracy of the clinical cause of death has not improved despite advances in diagnostic techniques. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of the clinical cause of death compared with the autopsy cause of death and to see if the Coroner's autopsy can play a role in clinical audit. Our study population consisted of all autopsies where the deceased was hospitalised or resuscitated at the Accident and Emergency Unit of the University of Malaya Medical Centre before death, performed during the period July 1998 to June 2000. The cases were subdivided according to natural and unnatural causes of deaths. Natural deaths were further subdivided in relation to the main organ systems involved while unnatural deaths were subcategorised into trauma, poisoning and burns. The rate of agreement between clinical and autopsy cause of death was further compared with duration of survival in the hospital. Of 132 autopsies included in this study, 115 were Coroner's autopsies. 78% of cases showed agreement between clinical and autopsy cause of death. The agreement rate in Coroner's cases was 80.0%. For natural and unnatural causes, the agreement rate was 56.7% and 84.3% respectively. There were 6 cases (4.5%) where an initial accurate diagnosis might have altered the prognosis of the deceased. In general, the rate of agreement increased with duration of survival of patients. However, this was no longer observed after a survival of more than 28 days. Our findings agree with other similar studies. The diagnostic accuracy of cause of death has not improved despite the modernisation in medical technology. The autopsy still plays an important role in clinical audit and medical education.
Matched MeSH terms: Coroners and Medical Examiners/standards*; Coroners and Medical Examiners/statistics & numerical data
All deaths due to unnatural causes and deaths that are believed to be due to natural causes but where the medical cause of death is not certain or known are subjected to an inquest. The objective of an inquest is to ascertain facts pertaining to the death. This is achieved by inquiry and at the conclusion of the inquest a verdict is arrived as to whether the death was due to a natural, accidental, suicidal or a homicidal cause. An inquest is not a trial. There is no complainant or defendant and at the conclusion of the inquest no judgment is passed. The inquest system exists in all parts of the world. In the English legal system, the person who conducts an inquest is called a Coroner. In Scotland, he is called a Procurator Fiscal. The United States of America use the Medical Examiner system. Most continental European countries and their former colonies follow the Code Napoleon. A postmortem examination may become necessary in certain deaths that come up for inquests. In these situations the authority which conducts the inquest will order a doctor to perform a postmortem examination (medico-legal autopsy). To perform a medico-legal autopsy, consent from the relatives of the deceased is not required. In an unexpected sudden death, only a doctor after a postmortem examination may be able to determine the cause of death. However, it is often wrongly assumed that the objective of a postmortem examination is only to ascertain the cause of death. This article deals with the purpose of the inquest and roles of the medico-legal autopsy.
Matched MeSH terms: Coroners and Medical Examiners