Literature DB >> 30651239

Hindsight bias critically impacts on clinicians' assessment of care quality in retrospective case note review.

Edward Banham-Hall1, Sian Stevens2.   

Abstract

Objective To determine whether hindsight bias impacts on retrospective case note review using a five point scoring system based on modern clinical governance toolkits. Design Survey. Setting Clinicians of varying grades invited to complete a short internet survey. Participants Ninety three clinicians were invited to complete an anonymous survey in which they reviewed three case vignettes for the purposes of a fictional clinical governance meeting. For each vignette, participants were randomised to an outcome in which the patient made a full recovery or alternatively died shortly after discharge. Main outcome measure. Participants submit scores from 1 to 5 to indicate the quality of care provided to patients prior to their discharge. These scores were compared to determine whether judgements about the quality of antecedent care were biased by the description of a patient death. Results In two out of three case vignettes clinicians exhibited marked hindsight bias. In a case of a patient with a swollen leg, identical antecedent care was scored as poor by participants when the patient died the next day, but good when the patient recovered (p<0.00001). In a case of headache, care was scored as poor when the patient died but adequate when the patient made a full recovery (p=0.0003). A third case of chest pain did not exhibit hindsight bias. Seniority of clinician had no impact on the tendency to exhibit hindsight bias when reviewing case notes. Conclusion In some cases, clinicians are markedly more critical of identical healthcare when a patient dies compared to when a patient survives. Hindsight bias while reviewing care when a patient survives might prevent identification of learning arising from errors. Additionally, we predict hindsight bias combined with a legal duty of candour will cause families to be informed that patients died because of healthcare error when this is not a fact. © Royal College of Physicians 2019. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Structured judgement review; case note review; morbidity mortality; ­hindsight bias

Year:  2019        PMID: 30651239      PMCID: PMC6399623          DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-1-16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)        ISSN: 1470-2118            Impact factor:   2.659


  16 in total

1.  Hindsight bias in medicolegal expert reports.

Authors:  Thomas B Hugh; G Douglas Tracy
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2002-03-18       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Hindsight not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. 1975.

Authors:  B Fischhoff
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-08

3.  [To make good use of medical error].

Authors:  Georges David
Journal:  Bull Acad Natl Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 0.144

4.  'What's Psychology got to do with it?' Applying psychological theory to understanding failures in modern healthcare settings.

Authors:  Michelle Rydon-Grange
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 5.  Hindsight bias and outcome bias in the social construction of medical negligence: a review.

Authors:  Thomas B Hugh; Sidney W A Dekker
Journal:  J Law Med       Date:  2009-05

Review 6.  Adverse events in healthcare: learning from mistakes.

Authors:  N Rafter; A Hickey; S Condell; R Conroy; P O'Connor; D Vaughan; D Williams
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2014-07-29

Review 7.  Openness and honesty when things go wrong: the professional duty of candour (GMC guideline).

Authors:  Hannah Jacob; Joseph Raine
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 1.309

8.  Psychiatrist who failed in care of teenager with epilepsy who died in bath is suspended for 12 months.

Authors:  Clare Dyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-02-23

9.  Southern Health is fined £2m over deaths of two patients.

Authors:  Ingrid Torjesen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-03-27

10.  Reviewing deaths in British and US hospitals: a study of two scales for assessing preventability.

Authors:  Semira Manaseki-Holland; Richard J Lilford; Jonathan R B Bishop; Alan J Girling; Yen-Fu Chen; Peter J Chilton; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 7.035

View more
  4 in total

1.  Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making.

Authors:  Dipesh P Gopal; Ula Chetty; Patrick O'Donnell; Camille Gajria; Jodie Blackadder-Weinstein
Journal:  Future Healthc J       Date:  2021-03

2.  All change, all change.

Authors:  Ed Nicol
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.659

3.  Reasonable requests: echocardiography referral forms as a measure of coherent clinical communication.

Authors:  C Kotzé; A Parrish
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 3.263

4.  A Push-to-Talk Application as an Inter-Professional Communication Tool in an Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Osama Kentab; Khaled Soliman; Ahmad AAl Ibrahim; Abdulaziz Alresseeni; Khalid Aljohani; Muna Aljahany
Journal:  Open Access Emerg Med       Date:  2021-05-20
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.