Literature DB >> 28536918

[Cognitive errors in diagnostic decision making].

Martin Gäbler1.   

Abstract

Approximately 10-15% of our diagnostic decisions are faulty and may lead to unfavorable and dangerous outcomes, which could be avoided. These diagnostic errors are mainly caused by cognitive biases in the diagnostic reasoning process.Our medical diagnostic decision-making is based on intuitive "System 1" and analytical "System 2" diagnostic decision-making and can be deviated by unconscious cognitive biases.These deviations can be positively influenced on a systemic and an individual level. For the individual, metacognition (internal withdrawal from the decision-making process) and debiasing strategies, such as verification, falsification and rule out worst-case scenarios, can lead to improved diagnostic decisions making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Diagnostic Error; Differential Diagnosis; Medical Decision Making; Metacognition

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28536918     DOI: 10.1007/s10354-017-0570-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr        ISSN: 0043-5341


  43 in total

1.  Not again!

Authors:  D M Berwick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-03

Review 2.  Overview of the quality assurance movement in health care.

Authors:  Vincent de Jonge; Jerome Sint Nicolaas; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.043

Review 3.  [Review: Patient safety as a national health goal: current state and essential fields of action for the German healthcare system].

Authors:  Uvo M Hölscher; Peter Gausmann; Hans Haindl; Claus-Dieter Heidecke; Nils-Olaf Hübner; Wolfgang Lauer; Jörg Lauterberg; Max Skorning; Petra A Thürmann
Journal:  Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes       Date:  2014-02-18

4.  25-Year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986-2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Authors:  Ali S Saber Tehrani; HeeWon Lee; Simon C Mathews; Andrew Shore; Martin A Makary; Peter J Pronovost; David E Newman-Toker
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 7.035

5.  Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing.

Authors:  Pat Croskerry; Geeta Singhal; Sílvia Mamede
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 7.035

Review 6.  Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors.

Authors:  Robert El-Kareh; Omar Hasan; Gordon D Schiff
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change.

Authors:  Pat Croskerry; Geeta Singhal; Sílvia Mamede
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 7.035

Review 8.  Heuristic decision making in medicine.

Authors:  Julian N Marewski; Gerd Gigerenzer
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.986

9.  Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing.

Authors:  Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Iztok Hozo; Ambuj Kumar; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The pursuit of better diagnostic performance: a human factors perspective.

Authors:  Kerm Henriksen; Jeff Brady
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 7.035

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Fever in the Returning Traveler.

Authors:  Dennis Paquet; Laura Jung; Henning Trawinski; Sebastian Wendt; Christoph Lübbert
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 8.251

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.