Suppr超能文献

基于医院的输血医学中的推理陷阱。

Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.

作者信息

Raza Sheharyar, Jacobs Jeremy W, Booth Garrett S, Callum Jeannie

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Canadian Blood Services, Medical Affairs and Innovation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Transfus Med. 2024 Dec;34(6):543-549. doi: 10.1111/tme.13104. Epub 2024 Oct 15.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-based transfusion involves hundreds of daily medical decisions. Medical decision-making under uncertainty is susceptible to cognitive biases which can lead to systematic errors of reasoning and suboptimal patient care. Here we review common cognitive biases that may be relevant for transfusion practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Biases were selected based on categorical diversity, evidence from healthcare contexts, and relevance for transfusion medicine. For each bias, we provide background psychology literature, representative clinical examples, considerations for transfusion medicine, and strategies for mitigation.

RESULTS

We report seven cognitive biases relating to memory (availability heuristic, limited memory), interpretation (framing effects, anchoring bias), and incentives (search satisficing, sunk cost fallacy, feedback sanction).

CONCLUSION

Pitfalls of reasoning due to cognitive biases are prominent in medical decision making and relevant for hospital transfusion medicine. An awareness of these phenomena might stimulate further research, encourage corrective measures, and motivate nudge-based interventions to improve transfusion practice.

摘要

引言

基于医院的输血涉及每日数百项医疗决策。在不确定性情况下进行医疗决策容易受到认知偏差的影响,这可能导致系统性的推理错误和次优的患者护理。在此,我们回顾可能与输血实践相关的常见认知偏差。

材料与方法

基于类别多样性、医疗保健背景的证据以及与输血医学的相关性来选择偏差。对于每种偏差,我们提供背景心理学文献、代表性临床实例、输血医学考量以及缓解策略。

结果

我们报告了七种与记忆(可得性启发法、有限记忆)、解释(框架效应、锚定偏差)和激励(搜索满意、沉没成本谬误、反馈制裁)相关的认知偏差。

结论

认知偏差导致的推理陷阱在医疗决策中很突出,并且与医院输血医学相关。对这些现象的认识可能会激发进一步的研究,鼓励采取纠正措施,并推动基于助推的干预措施来改善输血实践。

相似文献

1
Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.基于医院的输血医学中的推理陷阱。
Transfus Med. 2024 Dec;34(6):543-549. doi: 10.1111/tme.13104. Epub 2024 Oct 15.
7
Clinicians' Cognitive and Affective Biases and the Practice of Psychotherapy.临床医生的认知和情感偏见与心理治疗实践。
Am J Psychother. 2021 Aug 1;74(3):119-126. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20200025. Epub 2021 Jan 15.
9
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.

本文引用的文献

1
Oxygen Extraction Ratios to Guide Red Blood Cell Transfusion.氧摄取率指导红细胞输注。
Transfus Med Rev. 2024 Jul;38(3):150834. doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2024.150834. Epub 2024 May 7.
2
The historical origins of modern international normalized ratio targets.现代国际标准化比值目标的历史起源。
J Thromb Haemost. 2024 Aug;22(8):2184-2194. doi: 10.1016/j.jtha.2024.05.013. Epub 2024 May 23.
7
Plasma transfusion practices: A multicentre electronic audit.血浆输注实践:一项多中心电子审核。
Vox Sang. 2022 Oct;117(10):1211-1219. doi: 10.1111/vox.13355. Epub 2022 Sep 14.
9
Apparent sunk cost effect in rational agents.理性主体中的明显沉没成本效应。
Sci Adv. 2022 Feb 11;8(6):eabi7004. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abi7004.

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