• 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

急诊医学中的反射性控制。

Reflexive control in emergency medicine.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States of America.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Jul;81:75-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.04.037. Epub 2024 Apr 23.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2024.04.037
PMID:38677197
Abstract

Emergency physicians (EPs) navigate high-pressure environments, making rapid decisions amidst ambiguity. Their choices are informed by a complex interplay of experience, information, and external forces. While cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) expedite assessments, there are multiple ways they can be subtly manipulated, potentially leading to reflexive control: external actors steering EPs' decisions for their own benefit. Pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and media narratives are among the numerous factors that influence the EPs' information landscape. Using tactics such as selective data dissemination, framing, and financial incentives, these actors can exploit pre-existing cognitive biases like anchoring, confirmation, and availability. This creates fertile ground for reflexive control, where EPs may believe they are acting independently while unknowingly serving the goals of external influencers. The consequences of manipulated decision making can be severe: misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and increased healthcare costs. Ethical dilemmas arise when external pressures conflict with patient well-being. Recognizing these dangers empowers EPs to resist reflexive control through (1) critical thinking: examining information for potential biases and prioritizing evidence-based practices, (2) continuous education: learning about cognitive biases and mitigation strategies, and (3) institutional policies: implementing regulations to reduce external influence and to promote transparency. This vulnerability of emergency medicine decision making highlights the need for awareness, education, and robust ethical frameworks. Understanding reflexive control techniques is crucial for safeguarding patient care and promoting independent, ethical decision making in emergency medicine.

摘要

急诊医师(EP)在高压环境中工作,在不确定的情况下迅速做出决策。他们的决策是基于经验、信息和外部力量的复杂相互作用。虽然认知捷径(启发式)可以加速评估,但它们可能会被微妙地操纵,从而导致反射性控制:外部因素为了自身利益而引导 EP 的决策。制药公司、设备制造商和媒体叙事是影响 EP 信息环境的众多因素之一。这些行为者可以通过选择性数据传播、框架和财务激励等策略,利用预先存在的认知偏见,如锚定、确认和可得性。这为反射性控制创造了有利条件,EP 可能认为自己在独立行动,而实际上却在不知不觉中为外部影响者的目标服务。受操纵的决策可能会导致严重后果:误诊、不适当的治疗和增加医疗费用。当外部压力与患者的健康福祉发生冲突时,就会出现伦理困境。认识到这些危险,使 EP 能够通过以下方式抵制反射性控制:(1)批判性思维:检查信息以发现潜在的偏见,并优先考虑基于证据的实践;(2)持续教育:了解认知偏见和缓解策略;(3)机构政策:实施法规以减少外部影响并促进透明度。这种急诊医学决策的易感性突出了提高认识、教育和健全伦理框架的必要性。了解反射性控制技术对于保护患者护理和促进急诊医学中的独立、道德决策至关重要。

相似文献

1
Reflexive control in emergency medicine.急诊医学中的反射性控制。
Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Jul;81:75-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.04.037. Epub 2024 Apr 23.
2
Emergency Physicians' Ethical Issues with Hospital Business Models.急诊医师与医院商业模式的伦理问题。
J Emerg Med. 2024 Jul;67(1):e99-e104. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.03.005. Epub 2024 Mar 12.
3
Dropping the baton: Cognitive biases in emergency physicians.接力棒传递失误:急诊医生的认知偏差
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 2;20(1):e0316361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316361. eCollection 2025.
4
Fast and slow thinking; and the problem of conflating clinical reasoning and ethical deliberation in acute decision-making.快速与慢速思维;以及急性决策中临床推理与伦理审议混同的问题。
J Paediatr Child Health. 2019 Jun;55(6):621-624. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14447. Epub 2019 Apr 1.
5
Medicine and heuristics: cognitive biases and medical decision-making.医学与启发法:认知偏差与医疗决策
Ir J Med Sci. 2020 Nov;189(4):1477-1484. doi: 10.1007/s11845-020-02235-1. Epub 2020 May 14.
6
Informed consent for artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: A practical guide.知情同意在急诊医学中的人工智能应用:实用指南。
Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Feb;76:225-230. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.11.022. Epub 2023 Nov 25.
7
Emergency physicians' attitudes and preferences regarding computed tomography, radiation exposure, and imaging decision support.急诊医师对计算机断层扫描、辐射暴露和影像决策支持的态度和偏好。
Acad Emerg Med. 2014 Jul;21(7):768-77. doi: 10.1111/acem.12410.
8
The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department.作为利益相关者的医生:对急诊科医生使用共同决策动机的探索性定性分析
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;23(12):1417-1427. doi: 10.1111/acem.13043. Epub 2016 Nov 25.
9
Clinical decision-making: Cognitive biases and heuristics in triage decisions in the emergency department.临床决策:急诊科分诊决策中的认知偏差与启发式思维
Am J Emerg Med. 2025 Jun;92:60-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2025.02.043. Epub 2025 Feb 27.
10
Healthcare professionals face ethical challenges in managing care for neurodevelopmental disorders: a qualitative study in Lebanon.医疗保健专业人员在管理神经发育障碍护理方面面临伦理挑战:黎巴嫩的一项定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 2;15(1):e082281. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082281.