Zwaan Laura, Monteiro Sandra, Sherbino Jonathan, Ilgen Jonathan, Howey Betty, Norman Geoffrey
Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center/EMGO Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Feb;26(2):104-110. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005014. Epub 2016 Jan 29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
许多作者认为认知偏差是诊断错误的主要原因。如果真是如此,那么已经熟悉常见认知偏差的医生应该能够始终如一地识别临床检查中存在的偏差。本文旨在确定医生对于临床病例检查中特定偏差的存在与否是否达成一致,以及病例结果知识如何影响偏差识别。
我们对37名医生进行了网络调查。每位参与者阅读8个病例,并从提供的列表中列出存在哪些偏差。在一半的病例中,结果暗示诊断正确;在另一半病例中,结果暗示诊断错误。我们比较了结果暗示正确或错误的初步诊断时所识别出的偏差数量。此外,还评估了参与者之间关于特定偏差存在与否的一致性。
当病例结果暗示诊断正确时,平均报告了1.75种认知偏差;当结果暗示诊断错误时,平均报告了3.45种偏差(F = 71.3,p < 0.00001)。当暗示诊断错误时,个体偏差的报告频率要高出73%至125%。对于个体偏差的存在与否没有达成一致,κ值范围为0.000至0.044。
个体医生对于个体认知偏差的存在与否无法达成一致。他们的判断受到后见之明偏差的严重影响;当结果暗示诊断错误时,所识别出的偏差数量会增加一倍。这些结果给当前基于认知偏差识别的减少错误策略带来了挑战。