Physicians’ Flawed Heuristics in the Delivery Room

Meng Li,Helen Colby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl5647

IF: 56.9

2021-01-01

Science

Abstract:Delivery complications can influence later decision-making.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital‐based transfusion medicine

Sheharyar Raza,Jeremy W. Jacobs,Garrett S. Booth,Jeannie Callum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13104

2024-10-17

Transfusion Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Hospital‐based transfusion involves hundreds of daily medical decisions. Medical decision‐making under uncertainty is susceptible to cognitive biases which can lead to systematic errors of reasoning and suboptimal patient care. Here we review common cognitive biases that may be relevant for transfusion practice. Materials and Methods Biases were selected based on categorical diversity, evidence from healthcare contexts, and relevance for transfusion medicine. For each bias, we provide background psychology literature, representative clinical examples, considerations for transfusion medicine, and strategies for mitigation. Results We report seven cognitive biases relating to memory (availability heuristic, limited memory), interpretation (framing effects, anchoring bias), and incentives (search satisficing, sunk cost fallacy, feedback sanction). Conclusion Pitfalls of reasoning due to cognitive biases are prominent in medical decision making and relevant for hospital transfusion medicine. An awareness of these phenomena might stimulate further research, encourage corrective measures, and motivate nudge‐based interventions to improve transfusion practice.

hematology
Decision-making and safety in anesthesiology

Marjorie P. Stiegler,Keith J. Ruskin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/aco.0b013e328359307a

2012-12-01

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

Abstract:PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anesthesiologists work in a complex environment that is intolerant of errors. Cognitive errors, or errors in thought processes, are mistakes that a clinician makes despite 'knowing better'. Several new studies provide a better understanding of how to manage risk while making better decisions.RECENT FINDINGS: Heuristics, or mental shortcuts, allow physicians to make decisions quickly and efficiently but may be responsible for errors in diagnosis and treatment. Using simple 'decision-making checklists' can help healthcare providers to make the correct decisions by monitoring their own thought processes. Anesthesiologists can adopt risk assessment tools that were originally developed for use by pilots to determine the hazards associated with a particular clinical management strategy.SUMMARY: Effective decision-making and risk management reduce the risk of adverse events in the operating room. This article proposes several new decision-making and risk assessment tools for use in the operating room.

English Else
Review of the Basics of Cognitive Error in Emergency Medicine: Still No Easy Answers

Sarah Hartigan,Michelle Brooks,Sarah Hartley,Rebecca E Miller,Sally A Santen,Robin R Hemphill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2020.7.47832

2020-11-02

Abstract:Emergency physicians (EP) make clinical decisions multiple times daily. In some instances, medical errors occur due to flaws in the complex process of clinical reasoning and decision-making. Cognitive error can be difficult to identify and is equally difficult to prevent. To reduce the risk of patient harm resulting from errors in critical thinking, it has been proposed that we train physicians to understand and maintain awareness of their thought process, to identify error-prone clinical situations, to recognize predictable vulnerabilities in thinking, and to employ strategies to avert cognitive errors. The first step to this approach is to gain an understanding of how physicians make decisions and what conditions may predispose to faulty decision-making. We review the dual-process theory, which offers a framework to understand both intuitive and analytical reasoning, and to identify the necessary conditions to support optimal cognitive processing. We also discuss systematic deviations from normative reasoning known as cognitive biases, which were first described in cognitive psychology and have been identified as a contributing factor to errors in medicine. Training physicians in common biases and strategies to mitigate their effect is known as debiasing. A variety of debiasing techniques have been proposed for use by clinicians. We sought to review the current evidence supporting the effectiveness of these strategies in the clinical setting. This discussion of improving clinical reasoning is relevant to medical educators as well as practicing EPs engaged in continuing medical education.
Using case vignettes to study the presence of outcome, hindsight, and implicit bias in acute unplanned medical care: a cross-sectional study

Patricia Plaum,Laura N Visser,Bas de Groot,Marlies E B Morsink,Wilma L J M Duijst,Bart G J Candel,Laura N. Visser,Marlies E.B. Morsink,Wilma L.J.M. Duijst,Bart G.J. Candel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mej.0000000000001127

2024-02-16

European Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Background and importance Various biases can impact decision-making and judgment of case quality in the Emergency Department (ED). Outcome and hindsight bias can lead to wrong retrospective judgment of care quality, and implicit bias can result in unjust treatment differences in the ED based on irrelevant patient characteristics. Objectives First, to evaluate the extent to which knowledge of an outcome influences physicians’ quality of care assessment. Secondly, to examine whether patients with functional disorders receive different treatment compared to patients with a somatic past medical history. Design A web-based cross-sectional study in which physicians received case vignettes with a case description and care provided. Physicians were informed about vignette outcomes in a randomized way (no, good, or bad outcome). Physicians rated quality of care for four casevignettes with different outcomes. Subsequently, they received two more case vignettes. Physicians were informed about the past medical history of the patient in a randomized way (somatic or functional). Physicians made treatment and diagnostic decisions for both cases. Setting and participants One hundred ninety-one Dutch emergency physicians (EPs) and general practitioners (GPs) participated. Outcome measures and analysis Quality of care was rated on a Likert scale (0–5) and dichotomized as adequate (yes/no). Physicians estimated the likelihood of patients experiencing a bad outcome for hindsight bias. For the second objective, physicians decided on prescribing analgesics and additional diagnostic tests. Main results Large differences existed in rated quality of care for three out of four vignettes based on different case outcomes. For example, physicians rated the quality of care as adequate in 44% (95% CI 33–57%) for an abdominal pain case with a bad outcome, compared to 88% (95% CI 78–94%) for a good outcome, and 84% (95% CI 73–91%) for no outcome ( P < 0.01). The estimated likelihood of a bad outcome was higher if physicians received a vignette with a bad patient outcome. Fewer diagnostic tests were performed and fewer opioids were prescribed for patients with a functional disorder. Conclusion Outcome, hindsight, and implicit bias significantly influence decision-making and care quality assessment by Dutch EPs and GPs.

emergency medicine
Decision-making, uncertainty and risk: Exploring the complexity of work processes in NHS delivery suites

Gloria Lankshear,Elizabeth Ettorre,David Mason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570500390499

2005-12-01

Health, Risk and Society

Abstract:The concept of the ‘risk society’ has focused on growing uncertainties about the benefits of scientific innovation and the reliability of professional judgement. Paradoxically, this has gone hand in hand with reductions in the actual risk associated with many activities and is often accompanied by demands for a technological fix. These contradictory impulses are especially evident in maternity care. While maternal and infant mortality rates have fallen, risk conscious patients are increasingly concerned about the possibility of professional mistake or malpractice. As a result, further categories of risk are created for organizations and professionals, particularly in relation to expensive litigation. Against this background, the paper reports on an ethnographic study of two delivery suites in which a computerized decision support system will be implemented. In the paper, we attempt to highlight some of the intricacies of work processes in delivery suites, specifically involving decision-making, risk, uncertainty, professional autonomy and medical knowledge. Our findings suggest a range of complexities that may considerably complicate the implementation of the computerized decision support system when it finally emerges and becomes embedded in delivery suites.
Cognitive Bias in the Patient Encounter: Part II. Debiasing using an adaptive toolbox

Christine J Ko,Jeffrey R Gehlhausen,Jeffrey M Cohen,Yiqun Jiang,Peggy Myung,Pat Croskerry,Christine J. Ko,Jeffrey R. Gehlhausen,Jeffrey M. Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2024.02.061

IF: 15.487

2024-04-09

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract:Cognitive bias may lead to medical error, and awareness of cognitive pitfalls is a potential first step to addressing the negative consequences of cognitive bias (see Part 1). For decision-making processes that occur under uncertainty, which encompass most physician decisions, a so-called "adaptive toolbox" is beneficial for good decisions. The adaptive toolbox is inclusive of broad strategies like cultural humility, emotional intelligence, and self-care that help combat implicit bias, negative consequences of affective bias, and optimize cognition. Additionally, the adaptive toolbox includes situational-specific tools such as heuristics, narratives, cognitive forcing functions, and fast and frugal trees. Such tools may mitigate against errors due to cultural, affective, and cognitive bias. Part 2 of this two-part series covers metacognition and cognitive bias in relation to broad and specific strategies aimed at better decision-making.

dermatology
The impact of errors on healthcare professionals in the critical care setting

Amanpreet P Kaur,Andrew T Levinson,Joao Filipe G Monteiro,Gerardo P Carino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.03.001

Abstract:Purpose: Medical errors occur at high rates in intensive care units (ICUs) and have great consequences. The impact of errors on healthcare professionals is rarely discussed. We hypothesized that issues regarding blame and guilt following errors in the ICU exist and may be dependent on type of practitioner, level of experience, and error type. Materials and methods: An online survey was conducted of members of a large critical care medical society addressing three clinical scenarios of procedural, diagnostic and treatment errors. Results: Nine hundred one practitioners responded. In all scenarios, negative feeling after medical errors occurred in all practitioners regardless of experience or field. Surgeons and anesthesiologists showed higher negative responses after procedural errors while internal medicine and emergency medicine practitioners had higher negative responses after diagnostic errors. Survey respondents identified multiple ways to address these adverse feelings, including debriefing with the medical team (68%), talking with colleagues (68%) and discussing with patients and families (36%). Conclusions: In critical care, blame and guilt after medical errors are common and affect all providers. Critical care practitioners have identified methods which may help mitigate adverse feeling after medical errors, including debriefing and talking with colleagues. Hospitals may benefit from developing these types of strategies after medical errors.
Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Joshua A. Daily,Stephen Dalby,Lawrence Greiten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4

2024-03-24

Pediatric Cardiology

Abstract:Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that humans frequently diverge from rational decision-making processes due to the pervasive influence of cognitive biases. This paper conducts an examination of the impact of cognitive biases on high-stakes decision-making within the context of the joint pediatric cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery conference, offering practical recommendations for mitigating their effects. Recognized biases such as confirmation bias, availability bias, outcome bias, overconfidence bias, sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, planning fallacy, authority bias, and illusion of agreement are analyzed concerning their specific implications within this conference setting. To counteract these biases and enhance the quality of decision-making, practical strategies are proposed, including the implementation of a no-interruption policy until all data is reviewed, leaders refraining from immediate input, requiring participants to formulate independent judgments prior to sharing recommendations, explicit probability estimations grounded in base rates, seeking external opinions, and promoting an environment that encourages dissenting perspectives.

pediatrics,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

Camille Lakhlifi,Benjamin Rohaut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2023.104181

Abstract:Neuropronostication for consciousness disorders can be very complex and prone to high uncertainty. Despite notable advancements in the development of dedicated scales and physiological markers using innovative paradigms, these technical progressions are often overshadowed by factors intrinsic to the medical environment. Beyond the scarcity of objective data guiding medical decisions, factors like time pressure, fatigue, multitasking, and emotional load can drive clinicians to rely more on heuristic-based clinical reasoning. Such an approach, albeit beneficial under certain circumstances, may lead to systematic error judgments and impair medical decisions, especially in complex and uncertain environments. After a brief review of the main theoretical frameworks, this paper explores the influence of clinicians' cognitive biases on clinical reasoning and decision-making in the challenging context of neuroprognostication for consciousness disorders. The discussion further revolves around developing and implementing various strategies designed to mitigate these biases and their impact, aiming to enhance the quality of care and the patient safety.
Enabling diagnostic excellence in the real world: Managing complexity, uncertainty and clinical responsibility

Nicola Cunningham,Helmy Cook,Julia Harrison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2402032

2024-09-16

Abstract:Diagnostic error is a significant category within preventable patient harm, and it takes many years of effort to develop proficiency in diagnostic reasoning. One of the key challenges medical schools must address is preparing students for the complexity, uncertainty and clinical responsibility in going from student to doctor. Recognising the importance of both cognitive and systems-related factors in diagnostic accuracy, we designed the QUID Prompt (Questions to Use for Improving Diagnosis) for students to refer to at the bedside. This set of questions prompts careful consideration, analysis, and signposting of decision-making processes, to assist students in transitioning from medical school to the real-world of work and achieving diagnostic excellence in clinical settings.
Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis

Satid Thammasitboon,William B Cutrer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2013.07.003

Abstract:A significant portion of diagnostic errors arises through cognitive errors resulting from inadequate knowledge, faulty data gathering, and/or faulty verification. Experts estimate that 75% of diagnostic failures can be attributed to clinician diagnostic thinking failure. The cognitive processes that underlie diagnostic thinking of clinicians are complex and intriguing, and it is imperative that clinicians acquire explicit appreciation and application of different cognitive approaches to make decisions better. A dual-process model that unifies many theories of decision-making has emerged as a promising template for understanding how clinicians think and judge efficiently in a diagnostic reasoning process. The identification and implementation of strategies for decreasing or preventing such diagnostic errors has become a growing area of interest and research. Suggested strategies to decrease diagnostic error incidence include increasing clinician's clinical expertise and avoiding inherent cognitive errors to make decisions better. Implementing Interventions focused solely on avoiding errors may work effectively for patient safety issues such as medication errors. Addressing cognitive errors, however, requires equal effort on expanding the individual clinician's expertise. Providing cognitive support to clinicians for robust diagnostic decision-making serves as the final strategic target for decreasing diagnostic errors. Clinical guidelines and algorithms offer another method for streamlining decision-making and decreasing likelihood of cognitive diagnostic errors. Addressing cognitive processing errors is undeniably the most challenging task in reducing diagnostic errors. While many suggested approaches exist, they are mostly based on theories and sciences in cognitive psychology, decision-making, and education. The proposed interventions are primarily suggestions and very few of them have been tested in the actual practice settings. Collaborative research effort is required to effectively address cognitive processing errors. Researchers in various areas, including patient safety/quality improvement, decision-making, and problem solving, must work together to make medical diagnosis more reliable.
Complex decision making in an intensive care environment: Perceived practice versus observed reality

Sarah A Teele,Patrice Tremoulet,Peter C Laussen,Nicole Danaher-Garcia,Joshua W Salvin,Bobbie Ann A White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13930

Abstract:Rationale: Advancing our understanding of how decisions are made in cognitively, socially and technologically complex hospital environments may reveal opportunities to improve healthcare delivery, medical education and the experience of patients, families and clinicians. Aims and objectives: Explore factors impacting clinician decision making in the Boston Children's Hospital Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Methods: A convergent mixed methods design was used. Quantitative and qualitative data sources consisted of a faculty survey, direct observations of clinical rounds in a specific patient population identified by a clinical decision support system (CDSS) and semistructured interviews (SSIs). Deductive and inductive coding was used for qualitative data. Qualitative data were translated into images using social network analysis which illustrate the frequency and connectivity of the codes in each data set. Results: A total of 25 observations of eight faculty-led interprofessional teams were performed between 12 February and 31 March 2021. Individual patient characteristics were noted by faculty in SSIs to be the most important factor in their decision making, yet ethnographic observations suggested faculty cognitive traits, team expertise and value-based decisions were more heavily weighted. The development of expertise was impacted by role modeling. Decisions were perceived to be influenced by the system and environment. Conclusions: Clinician perception of decision making was not congruent with the observed behaviours in a complicated and dynamic system. This study identifies important considerations in clinical curricula as well as the design and implementation of CDSS. Our method of using social network analysis to visualize components of decision making could be adopted to explore other complex environments.
Diagnostic reasoning and cognitive error in emergency medicine: Implications for teaching and learning

Thierry Pelaccia,Jonathan Sherbino,Peter Wyer,Geoff Norman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14968

2024-10-22

Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Background Accurate diagnosis in emergency medicine (EM) is high stakes and challenging. Research into physicians' clinical reasoning has been ongoing since the late 1970s. The dual‐process theory has established itself as a valid model, including in EM. It is based on the distinction between two information‐processing systems. System 1 rapidly generates one or more diagnostic hypotheses almost instantaneously, driven by experiential knowledge, while System 2 proceeds more slowly and analytically, applying formal rules to arrive at a final diagnosis. Methods We reviewed the literature on dual‐process theory in the fields of cognitive science, medical education and emergency medicine. Results and Conclusion The literature reflects two prominent interpretations regarding the relationship between the fast and slow phases and these interpretations carry very different implications for the training of clinical learners. One interpretation, prominent in the EM community, presents it as a "check‐and‐balance" framework in which most diagnostic error is caused by cognitive biases originating within System 1. As a result, EM residents are frequently advised to deploy analytical (System 2) strategies to correct such biases. However, such teaching approaches are not supported by research into the nature of diagnostic reasoning. An alternative interpretation assumes a harmonious relationship between Systems 1 and 2 in which both fast and slow processes are driven by underlying knowledge that conditions performance and the occurrence of errors. Educational strategies corresponding to this alternative have not been explored in the EM literature. In this paper, we offer proposals for improving the teaching and learning of diagnostic reasoning by EM residents.

emergency medicine
Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of persistent dysphagia and patient partnership

Yumi Otaka,Yukinori Harada,Andrew Olson,Takuya Aoki,Taro Shimizu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0061

2024-09-03

Abstract:Objectives: Diagnostic excellence underscores the patient-centered diagnosis and patient engagement in the diagnostic process. In contrast to a patient-centered diagnosis, a doctor-centered diagnosis with a lack of patient engagement may inhibit the diagnostic process due to the lack of responsibility, disrupted information, and increased effect of cognitive biases, particularly in a situation where multiple physicians are involved. In this paper, we suggest a promising idea to enhance patient engagement in the diagnostic process by using written information by a patient about their perspective and experience, which can fill the gaps needed for diagnosis that doctors cannot find alone. Case presentation: A 38-year-old woman developed chest pain, which gradually worsened during the following two years. For two years, she was evaluated in multiple departments; however, no definitive diagnosis was made, and her condition did not improve. During this evaluation, she searched her symptoms and image findings online. She reached a possible diagnosis of 'esophageal achalasia.' Still, she could not tell her concerns to any physicians because she felt that her concerns were not correctly recognized, although she showed her notes that her symptoms were recorded. She finally consulted the department of internal medicine, where her notes and previous test results were thoroughly reviewed. The final diagnosis of esophageal achalasia was confirmed. Conclusions: Doctors must organize an environment where patients can freely express their thoughts, emotions, and ideas regarding their diagnosis. Cogenerating visit notes using patient input through written communication can be a promising idea to facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process.
Exploring Intraoperative Cognitive Biases in Cardiac Surgery Teams

Roger D Dias,Steven J Yule,Ryan Harari,Marco A Zenati

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004831

Abstract:This study focuses on understanding the influence of cognitive biases in the intra-operative decision-making process within cardiac surgery teams, recognizing the complexity and high-stakes nature of such environments. We aimed to investigate the perceived prevalence and impact of cognitive biases among cardiac surgery teams, and how these biases may affect intraoperative decisions and patient safety and outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, combining quantitative ratings across 32 different cognitive biases (0 to 100 visual analogue scale), regarding their "likelihood of occurring" and "potential for patient harm" during the intraoperative phase of cardiac surgery. Based on these ratings, we collected qualitative insights on the most-rated cognitive biases from semi-structured interviews with surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and perfusionists who work in a cardiac operating room. A total of 16 participants, including cardiac surgery researchers and clinicians, took part in the study. We found a significant presence of cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and overconfidence, which influenced decision-making processes and had the potential for patient harm. Of 32 cognitive biases, 6 were rated above the 75th percentile for both criteria (potential for patient harm, likelihood of occurring). Our preliminary findings provide a first step toward a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive mechanisms that underlie clinical reasoning and decision-making in the operating room. Future studies should further explore this topic, especially the relationship between the occurrence of intraoperative cognitive biases and postoperative surgical outcomes. Additionally, the impact of metacognition strategies (e.g. debiasing training) on reducing the impact of cognitive bias and improving intraoperative performance should also be investigated.
"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process

Mary A. Hill,Tess Coppinger,Kimia Sedig,William J. Gallagher,Kelley M. Baker,Helen Haskell,Kristen E. Miller,Kelly M. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000001273

2024-09-13

Journal of Patient Safety

Abstract:Diagnostic error, defined as the "failure to a) establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient's health problem or b) communicate that explanation to the patient," is a global patient safety challenge. 1–3 Evidence suggests diagnostic error accounts for more serious harm than any other type of medical error 4 and leads to approximately 795,000 serious harm incidents in the United States each year. 5 In the ambulatory care setting, 1 in 20 patients experiences a diagnostic error. 6

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
OC16.05: The factors influencing clinicians in medical decision making for fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia at a tertiary referral centre

Q. Wu,C. Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27833

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 42-42, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
'This time is different: physician knowledge in the age of artificial intelligence

Gurpreet Dhaliwal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017141

IF: 7.418

2024-08-18

BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract:Great diagnosticians are often portrayed as recognising rare diseases that evade the efforts of mere mortals. This makes for great TV and local legends, but does not reflect daily practice, where the most common diagnostic challenge is discriminating between common conditions like pneumonia and heart failure or appendicitis and gastroenteritis. Questions about how to train the brain to make those distinctions are central to the efforts of many clinician educators. An unresolved issue is whether the structure of knowledge (about diseases and diagnostic pathways) in the physician's long-term memory or the clinician's mode of cognition (intuitive or analytical thinking) is more deterministic of diagnostic success. A study1 in this issue of BMJQS sheds light on this issue, but also invites a broader question: is physician cognition still essential for this task at all? A test of lookalikes In a two-phase experiment, Mamede et al 1...

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Judgment Errors in Surgical Care

Katherine M Marsh,Florence E Turrentine,Ruyun Jin,Bruce D Schirmer,John B Hanks,John P Davis,Worthington G Schenk,R Scott Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000001011

2024-01-23

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract:Background: Human error is impossible to eliminate, particularly in systems as complex as health care. The extent to which judgment errors in particular impact surgical patient care or lead to harm is unclear. Study Design: American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (2018) procedures from a single institution with 30-day morbidity or mortality were examined. Medical records were reviewed and evaluated for judgment errors. Preoperative variables associated with judgment errors were examined using logistic regression. Results: Of the surgical patients who experienced a morbidity or mortality, 18% (31/170) experienced an error in judgment during their hospitalization. Patients with hepatobiliary procedure (Odds Ratio (OR) 5.4 (95% CI 1.23, 32.75), p = 0.002), insulin dependent diabetes (OR 4.8 (95% CI 1.2, 18.8), p=0.025), severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 6.0 (95% Ci 1.6, 22.1), p=0.007), or with infected wounds (OR 8.2 (95% Ci 2.6, 25.8), p<0.001) were at increased risk for judgment errors. Conclusion: Specific procedure types and patients with certain preoperative variables had higher risk for judgment errors during their hospitalization. Errors in judgment adversely impacted the outcomes of surgical patients who experienced morbidity or mortality in this cohort. Preventing or mitigating errors and closely monitoring patients after an error in judgment is prudent and may improve surgical safety.

surgery
Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes

Kotwal, Susrutha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08625-w

IF: 5.7

2024-01-27

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:Diagnostic errors cause significant patient harm. The clinician's ultimate goal is to achieve diagnostic excellence in order to serve patients safely. This can be accomplished by learning from both errors and successes in patient care. However, the extent to which clinicians grow and navigate diagnostic errors and successes in patient care is poorly understood. Clinically experienced hospitalists, who have cared for numerous acutely ill patients, should have great insights from their successes and mistakes to inform others striving for excellence in patient care.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services

Physicians’ Flawed Heuristics in the Delivery Room

Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital‐based transfusion medicine

Decision-making and safety in anesthesiology

Review of the Basics of Cognitive Error in Emergency Medicine: Still No Easy Answers

Using case vignettes to study the presence of outcome, hindsight, and implicit bias in acute unplanned medical care: a cross-sectional study

Decision-making, uncertainty and risk: Exploring the complexity of work processes in NHS delivery suites

Cognitive Bias in the Patient Encounter: Part II. Debiasing using an adaptive toolbox

The impact of errors on healthcare professionals in the critical care setting

Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

Enabling diagnostic excellence in the real world: Managing complexity, uncertainty and clinical responsibility

Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis

Complex decision making in an intensive care environment: Perceived practice versus observed reality

Diagnostic reasoning and cognitive error in emergency medicine: Implications for teaching and learning

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of persistent dysphagia and patient partnership

Exploring Intraoperative Cognitive Biases in Cardiac Surgery Teams

"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process

OC16.05: The factors influencing clinicians in medical decision making for fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia at a tertiary referral centre

'This time is different: physician knowledge in the age of artificial intelligence

Judgment Errors in Surgical Care

Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes