The influence of viewing time on visual diagnostic accuracy: Less is more.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors that contribute to diagnostic errors is critical if we are to correct or prevent them. Some scholars influenced by the default interventionist dual-process theory of cognition (dual-process theory) emphasise a narrow focus on individual clinician's faulty reasoning as a significant contributor. In this paper, we examine the validity of claims that dual process theory is a key to error reduction. METHODS: We examined the relationship between a clinical experience (staff and resident physicians) and viewing time on accuracy for categorising chest X-rays (CXRs) and electrocardiograms (ECGs). In two studies, participants categorised images as normal or abnormal, presented at viewing times of 175, 250, 500 and 1000 ms, to encourage System 1 processing. Study 2 extended viewing times to 1, 5, 10 and 20 s to allow time for System 2 processing and a diagnosis. Descriptives and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to analyse the proportion of true and false positive rates (TP and FP) as well as correct diagnoses. RESULTS: In Study 1, physicians were able to detect abnormal CXRs (0.78) and ECGs (0.67) with relatively high accuracy. The effect of experience was found for ECGs only, as staff physicians (0.71, 95% CI = 0.66-0.75) had higher ECG TP than resident physicians (0.63, 95% CI = 0.58-0.68) in Study 1, and staff had lower ECG FP (0.10, 95% CI = 0.03-0.18) than resident physicians (0.27, 95% CI = 0.20-0.33) in Study 2. In other comparisons, experience was equivocal for ECG FPs and CXR TPs and FPs. In Study 2, overall diagnostic accuracy was similar for both ECGs and CXRs, (0.74). There were small interactions between experience and time for TP in ECGs and FP in CXRs, which are discussed further in the discussion and offer insights into the relationship between processing and experience. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings raise concerns about the practical application of models that link processing type to diagnostic error, or to specific diagnostic error reduction strategies.

Eyeballing: the use of visual appearance to diagnose 'sick'.

CONTEXT: Prior studies suggest that clinicians can categorise patients in an emergency room as 'sick' or 'not sick' using rapid visual assessment. The rapid nature of these decisions suggests clinicians are relying on pattern recognition or System 1 processing; however, this has not been studied experimentally. In this study, we explore the accuracy of these decisions using patient disposition (discharge, admission to ward or admission to critical care) as an objective outcome, and collect evidence to argue for the use of System 1 processing in the 'sick' or 'not sick' decision process. METHODS: Fourteen practising emergency physicians reviewed 25 videos of patients presenting to the emergency room. They were asked to predict patient disposition (discharge, admission to ward or admission to critical care) and estimate whether they were 'sick' or 'not sick' using a continuous slider on a 'sick' scale from 'not sick' (0) to 'sick' (100). We collected decision time and asked physicians to identify how they came to the decision using a continuous slider on a 'system processing' scale from 'knew immediately' (0) to 'deliberated intently' (1). RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability judging 'sick' was computed as an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.54. Agreement among physicians in predicting disposition was 68% with ICC of 0.44, and accuracy at predicting disposition was 55%. Physicians made their decision in an average of 10 - 11 seconds and rated 70% of their decisions as < 0.5 on the scale from 'knew immediately' (0) to 'deliberated intently' (1). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced emergency physicians are able to visually assess patients rapidly and predict disposition in a very short time, albeit with fair reliability and lower accuracy than reported previously. Subjectively, they reported that the majority of decisions were on the side of 'knew immediately', consistent with the application of System 1 processing.

Why verifying diagnostic decisions with a checklist can help: insights from eye tracking.

Making a diagnosis involves ratifying or verifying a proposed answer. Formalizing this verification process with checklists, which highlight key variables involved in the diagnostic decision, is often advocated. However, the mechanisms by which a checklist might allow clinicians to improve their verification process have not been well studied. We hypothesize that using a checklist to verify diagnostic decisions enhances analytic scrutiny of key variables, thereby improving clinicians' ability to find and fix mistakes. We asked 16 participants to verify their interpretation of 12 electrocardiograms, randomly assigning half to be verified with a checklist and half with an analytic prompt. While participants were verifying their interpretation, we tracked their eye movements. We analyzed these eye movements using a series of eye tracking variables theoretically linked to analytic scrutiny of key variables. We found that more errors were corrected using a checklist compared to an analytic prompt (.27 ± .53 errors per ECG vs. .04 ± .43, F 1,15 = 8.1, p = .01, η (2) = .20). Checklist use was associated with enhanced analytic scrutiny in all eye tracking measures assessed (F 6,10 = 6.0, p = .02). In this experiment, using a key variable checklist to verify diagnostic decisions improved error detection. This benefit was associated with enhanced analytic scrutiny of those key variables as measured by eye tracking.

Finding and fixing mistakes: do checklists work for clinicians with different levels of experience?

Checklists that focus attention on key variables might allow clinicians to find and fix their mistakes. However, whether this approach can be applied to clinicians of varying degrees of expertise is unclear. Novice and expert clinicians vary in their predominant reasoning processes and in the types of errors they commit. We studied 44 clinicians with a range of electrocardiography (ECG) interpretation expertise: novice, intermediate and expert. Clinicians were asked to interpret 10 ECGs, self-report their predominant reasoning strategy and then check their interpretation with a checklist. We found that clinicians of all levels of expertise were able to use the checklist to find and fix mistakes. However, novice clinicians disproportionately benefited. Interestingly, while clinicians varied in their self-reported reasoning strategy, there was no relationship between reasoning strategy and checklist benefit.

Twelve tips on engaging learners in checking health care decisions.

BACKGROUND: Checking diagnostic and management decisions can help reduce medical error, however, little literature explores how this is best taught. AIMS: To provide practical advice to direct teaching practices. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature review using Medline and PsychInfo using search terms: check or checklist and medical error or diagnostic error, supplemented by a manual search through cited literature. CONCLUSION: Twelve tips for teaching how to check diagnostic and management decisions are presented.

Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit-Lesion-Only PCI in STEMI Patients With Diabetes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the COMPLETE Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI), a strategy of complete revascularization reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following STEMI. We evaluated the consistency of the effects of complete revascularization in patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: The COMPLETE trial randomized a strategy of complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (guideline-directed medical therapy alone). In prespecified analyses, treatment effects were determined in patients with and without diabetes on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Interaction P values were calculated to evaluate whether there was a differential treatment effect in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 4041 patients enrolled in the COMPLETE trial, 787 patients (19.5%) had diabetes. The median HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) was 7.7% in the diabetes group and 5.7% in the nondiabetes group. Complete revascularization consistently reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.59-1.29]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), with no evidence of a differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.36). Similarly, for the second coprimary outcome, no differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.27) of complete revascularization was found in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.39-0.60]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over a culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear. AIMS: We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures. METHODS: We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

The Role of Standardized Patient Programs in Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in curricula for training health professionals is a frequent institutional goal. The use of standardized (or simulated) patient programs (SPPs) to support EDI in health sciences training is not well described. Here the authors present a theoretical model based on a synthesis of the literature for using SPPs in EDI training, along with a narrative review of the available literature. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases for studies published between January 2000 and October 2019 describing the use of SPPs to support EDI in health sciences education. Studies were included if they described standardized patient (SP) education involving EDI and reported empiric data about its design, delivery, or effectiveness. The authors conducted a narrative review and provided a synthesis of the available literature, identifying key themes. RESULTS: Out of 117 studies identified, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (53%; n = 9) focused on cultural competence; many focused on communication with diverse patients (29%; n = 5) or health inequity (18%; n = 3). Studies employed portrayal of diversity (71%; n = 12) or learning objectives supported by diversity (29%; n = 5) as approaches to EDI relevant to SP training. Three primary themes emerged: improving cultural competence, effective communication with diverse patients, and highlighting health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: This review outlines approaches to EDI-based SPPs, with the perspectives and priorities of institutional approaches in mind. SP education around specific EDI issues is reported; however, programmatic approaches to EDI by SPPs are lacking. More research is needed to provide further evidence for the challenges, effectiveness, and outcomes of developing and implementing EDI-based SPPs in health sciences education.

2018 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Use of Antiplatelet Therapy.

Antiplatelet therapy (APT) has become an important tool in the treatment and prevention of atherosclerotic events, particularly those associated with coronary artery disease. A large evidence base has evolved regarding the relationship between APT prescription in various clinical contexts and risk/benefit relationships. The Guidelines Committee of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology publishes regular updates of its recommendations, taking into consideration the most recent clinical evidence. The present update to the 2011 and 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society APT guidelines incorporates new evidence on how to optimize APT use, particularly in situations in which few to no data were previously available. The recommendations update focuses on the following primary topics: (1) the duration of dual APT (DAPT) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome and non-acute coronary syndrome indications; (2) management of DAPT in patients who undergo noncardiac surgery; (3) management of DAPT in patients who undergo elective and semiurgent coronary artery bypass graft surgery; (4) when and how to switch between different oral antiplatelet therapies; and (5) management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients who undergo PCI. For PCI patients, we specifically analyze the particular considerations in patients with atrial fibrillation, mechanical or bioprosthetic valves (including transcatheter aortic valve replacement), venous thromboembolic disease, and established left ventricular thrombus or possible left ventricular thrombus with reduced ejection fraction after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In addition to specific recommendations, we provide values and preferences and practical tips to aid the practicing clinician in the day to day use of these important agents.

Am I right when I am sure? Data consistency influences the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and certainty.

PURPOSE: When gauging diagnostic accuracy cognitive biases may lead to inaccurate estimates of certainty, predisposing clinicians to diagnostic errors. This study explored the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and measures of certainty for diagnoses based on consistent or inconsistent information. METHOD: The authors analyzed three experiments among 180 to 190 postgraduate trainees performing cardiac physical diagnoses using a simulator from 2010 to 2012. Each asked participants to assess diagnostic certainty. One experiment used a seven-point certainty scale and provided only simulated physical findings. Two assessed certainty continuously (probability 1%-100%) and included cases with inconsistent clinical information in addition to simulated physical findings. Relationships between certainty and accuracy were explored through descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Measures of certainty ranged widely (between 2 and 7, and 5%-100%). Relationships between accuracy and certainty varied depending on information consistency. In experiments providing only simulated findings, or consistent clinical data, diagnostic accuracy was associated with higher certainty (median 90% versus 75%, and 5/7 versus 4/7, both P < .001). Studies providing inconsistent data generated similar certainty among participants regardless of accuracy (median 75% versus 75%, P = .36; and 80% versus 85%, P = .60). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy was moderately associated with higher certainty only when clinical data were consistent. This correlation disappeared when incon sistent data were provided, possi bly reflecting changes in reasoning strategies among diagnostically success ful trainees. The relationship between certainty and diagnostic accuracy is context dependent. Certainty is an unreliable surrogate for diagnostic accuracy.

Do you have to re-examine to reconsider your diagnosis? Checklists and cardiac exam.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated whether clinicians can use checklists to verify their diagnostic decisions. Checklists may improve accuracy by prompting clinicians to reconsider or recollect information but might impair decision making by adding to clinicians' cognitive load. This study assessed whether checklists improve cardiac exam diagnostic accuracy, and whether this benefit is dependent on collecting additional information. METHODS: 191 internal medicine residents examined a cardiopulmonary simulator. They provided a diagnosis, subjective rating of certainty, and key findings before and after using a checklist. Residents were randomised; half were allowed access to the simulator and half were prohibited access to the simulator while using the checklist. Residents rated their cognitive load in each step: prechecklist diagnosis, checklist use and postchecklist diagnosis. RESULT: Verifying with a checklist resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy; 88 residents (46%) made the correct diagnosis before using the checklist compared with 97 (51%) afterwards, p=0.04. The benefit of checklist use was restricted to residents allowed to re-examine the simulator (10 changed to correct diagnosis and one to an incorrect diagnosis) whereas no net benefit was seen among residents unable to re-examine the simulator (two changed to a correct diagnosis and two to an incorrect diagnosis, p=0.03). Those able to re-examine the simulator were slightly more confident after checklist use, whereas those unable to re-examine were slightly less confident after checklist use (p=0.01). The opportunity to re-examine the simulator had no effect on the accuracy of key findings reported. Of the three steps, checklist use was associated with the lowest cognitive load (F1,189=68 p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Verifying diagnostic decisions with a checklist improved diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was only seen when more information could be collected. Checklist use was not associated with increased cognitive load.