• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

临床认知与诊断错误:推理双过程模型的应用

Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning.

作者信息

Croskerry Pat

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, NS, Canada.

出版信息

Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 Sep;14 Suppl 1:27-35. doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9182-2. Epub 2009 Aug 11.

DOI:10.1007/s10459-009-9182-2
PMID:19669918
Abstract

Both systemic and individual factors contribute to missed or delayed diagnoses. Among the multiple factors that impact clinical performance of the individual, the caliber of cognition is perhaps the most relevant and deserves our attention and understanding. In the last few decades, cognitive psychologists have gained substantial insights into the processes that underlie cognition, and a new, universal model of reasoning and decision making has emerged, Dual Process Theory. The theory has immediate application to medical decision making and provides an overall schema for understanding the variety of theoretical approaches that have been taken in the past. The model has important practical applications for decision making across the multiple domains of healthcare, and may be used as a template for teaching decision theory, as well as a platform for future research. Importantly, specific operating characteristics of the model explain how diagnostic failure occurs.

摘要

系统性因素和个体因素都会导致漏诊或诊断延迟。在影响个体临床行为的诸多因素中,认知能力或许最为关键,值得我们关注和理解。在过去几十年里,认知心理学家对认知背后的过程有了深入了解,一种全新的、通用的推理与决策模型——双加工理论应运而生。该理论可直接应用于医学决策,并为理解过去采用的各种理论方法提供了一个总体框架。该模型在医疗保健的多个领域的决策中具有重要的实际应用价值,可作为决策理论教学的模板,也可作为未来研究的平台。重要的是,该模型的特定运行特征解释了诊断失误是如何发生的。

相似文献

1
Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning.临床认知与诊断错误:推理双过程模型的应用
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 Sep;14 Suppl 1:27-35. doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9182-2. Epub 2009 Aug 11.
2
Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionmaking.临床决策中的认知强制策略。
Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Jan;41(1):110-20. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.22.
3
Dual processing and diagnostic errors.双重加工与诊断错误。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 Sep;14 Suppl 1:37-49. doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9179-x. Epub 2009 Aug 11.
4
Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis.诊断决策制定与改善诊断的策略。
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2013 Oct;43(9):232-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2013.07.003.
5
Cognitive balanced model: a conceptual scheme of diagnostic decision making.认知平衡模型:诊断决策的概念框架。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):82-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01771.x. Epub 2011 Oct 17.
6
A cognitive blueprint of collaboration in context: distributed cognition in the psychiatric emergency department.情境中协作的认知蓝图:精神科急诊科的分布式认知
Artif Intell Med. 2006 Jun;37(2):73-83. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2006.03.009. Epub 2006 May 30.
7
Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning.诊断错误与临床推理。
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):94-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03507.x.
8
An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition.临床推理的综合模型:认知和元认知的双加工理论。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Oct;18(5):954-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01900.x.
9
Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert's voice.背景与临床推理:理解专家观点的视角。
Med Educ. 2011 Sep;45(9):927-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04053.x.
10
Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine.过度自信作为医学诊断错误的一个原因。
Am J Med. 2008 May;121(5 Suppl):S2-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001.

引用本文的文献

1
Phosphate, Fractures, and Frustration-A Missed Diagnosis of Oncogenic Osteomalacia Leading to Multisystem Complication.磷酸盐、骨折与挫折——一例误诊为致癌性骨软化症并导致多系统并发症的病例
Clin Case Rep. 2025 Aug 11;13(8):e70790. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.70790. eCollection 2025 Aug.
2
Cognitive Errors and Debiasing.认知错误与去偏
J Educ Teach Emerg Med. 2025 Jul 31;10(3):L1-L6. doi: 10.21980/J84W96. eCollection 2025 Jul.
3
Comparing Performance Outcomes of Emergency Medicine-Trained vs. Non-Emergency Medicine-Trained Physicians in Emergency Departments.
比较急诊科中接受过急诊医学培训与未接受过急诊医学培训的医生的绩效结果。
J Acute Med. 2025 Jun 1;15(2):58-65. doi: 10.6705/j.jacme.202506_15(2).0003.
4
"Everything is electronic health record-driven": the role of the electronic health record in the emergency department diagnostic process.“一切皆由电子健康记录驱动”:电子健康记录在急诊科诊断过程中的作用
JAMIA Open. 2025 Apr 23;8(2):ooaf029. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf029. eCollection 2025 Apr.
5
Community pharmacists' decision-making patterns in clinical prescription checking: A simulation-based study.社区药剂师临床处方审核中的决策模式:一项基于模拟的研究。
Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2025 Jan 21;17:100569. doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100569. eCollection 2025 Mar.
6
A Strategic Approach to Succeed on Clinical Case-Based Multiple-Choice Exams.在基于临床病例的多项选择题考试中取得成功的策略方法。
MedEdPublish (2016). 2024 Dec 24;14:156. doi: 10.12688/mep.20542.2. eCollection 2024.
7
Point-of-care tests, diagnostic uncertainty and antimicrobial stewardship in the ICU: procalcitonin or PCR to aid antibiotic-stop decisions - an observational cohort study.重症监护病房中的即时检验、诊断不确定性与抗菌药物管理:降钙素原或聚合酶链反应助力抗生素停用决策——一项观察性队列研究
BMJ Open. 2024 Dec 20;14(12):e084872. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084872.
8
Developing clinical reasoning along the cognitive continuum: a mixed methods evaluation of a novel Clinical Diagnosis Assessment.沿着认知连续体培养临床推理能力:一项新型临床诊断评估的混合方法评价
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jan 8;25(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06613-6.
9
Reasoning on Rounds Volume 2: a Framework for Teaching Management Reasoning in the Inpatient Setting.《查房推理第2卷:住院环境下管理推理教学框架》
J Gen Intern Med. 2025 May;40(6):1424-1429. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-09039-4. Epub 2024 Dec 20.
10
Paramedic perceptions of decision-making when managing mental health-related presentations: a qualitative study.急救人员在处理心理健康相关就诊时的决策感知:一项定性研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024 Nov 19;24(1):348. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02768-w.