Laura Zwaan1,2, Sandra Monteiro3, Jonathan Sherbino4, Jonathan Ilgen5, Betty Howey6, Geoffrey Norman3. 1. Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center/EMGO Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Program for Educational Research and Development, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many authors have implicated cognitive biases as a primary cause of diagnostic error. If this is so, then physicians already familiar with common cognitive biases should consistently identify biases present in a clinical workup. The aim of this paper is to determine whether physicians agree on the presence or absence of particular biases in a clinical case workup and how case outcome knowledge affects bias identification. METHODS: We conducted a web survey of 37 physicians. Each participant read eight cases and listed which biases were present from a list provided. In half the cases the outcome implied a correct diagnosis; in the other half, it implied an incorrect diagnosis. We compared the number of biases identified when the outcome implied a correct or incorrect primary diagnosis. Additionally, the agreement among participants about presence or absence of specific biases was assessed. RESULTS: When the case outcome implied a correct diagnosis, an average of 1.75 cognitive biases were reported; when incorrect, 3.45 biases (F=71.3, p<0.00001). Individual biases were reported from 73% to 125% more often when an incorrect diagnosis was implied. There was no agreement on presence or absence of individual biases, with κ ranging from 0.000 to 0.044. INTERPRETATION: Individual physicians are unable to agree on the presence or absence of individual cognitive biases. Their judgements are heavily influenced by hindsight bias; when the outcome implies a diagnostic error, twice as many biases are identified. The results present challenges for current error reduction strategies based on identification of cognitive biases. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Many authors have implicated cognitive biases as a primary cause of diagnostic error. If this is so, then physicians already familiar with common cognitive biases should consistently identify biases present in a clinical workup. The aim of this paper is to determine whether physicians agree on the presence or absence of particular biases in a clinical case workup and how case outcome knowledge affects bias identification. METHODS: We conducted a web survey of 37 physicians. Each participant read eight cases and listed which biases were present from a list provided. In half the cases the outcome implied a correct diagnosis; in the other half, it implied an incorrect diagnosis. We compared the number of biases identified when the outcome implied a correct or incorrect primary diagnosis. Additionally, the agreement among participants about presence or absence of specific biases was assessed. RESULTS: When the case outcome implied a correct diagnosis, an average of 1.75 cognitive biases were reported; when incorrect, 3.45 biases (F=71.3, p<0.00001). Individual biases were reported from 73% to 125% more often when an incorrect diagnosis was implied. There was no agreement on presence or absence of individual biases, with κ ranging from 0.000 to 0.044. INTERPRETATION: Individual physicians are unable to agree on the presence or absence of individual cognitive biases. Their judgements are heavily influenced by hindsight bias; when the outcome implies a diagnostic error, twice as many biases are identified. The results present challenges for current error reduction strategies based on identification of cognitive biases. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: José Antonio Soriano Sánchez; Kai Uwe Lewandrowski; José Alfonso Franco Jímenez; Manuel Eduardo Soto Garcia; Sergio Soriano Solís; Manuel Rodríguez García; Oscar Sanchéz Escandón; José Alberto Israel Romero Rangel Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2021-09-22
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-10-29
Authors: Shashi S Seshia; G Bryan Young; Michael Makhinson; Preston A Smith; Kent Stobart; Pat Croskerry Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Björn Mattsson; David Ertman; Aristomenis Konstantinos Exadaktylos; Luca Martinolli; Wolf E Hautz Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 2.692