The influence of context on diagnostic reasoning: A narrative synthesis of experimental findings.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Contextual information which is implicitly available to physicians during clinical encounters has been shown to influence diagnostic reasoning. To better understand the psychological mechanisms underlying the influence of context on diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a review of experimental research on this topic. METHOD: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus for relevant articles and looked for additional records by reading the references and approaching experts. We limited the review to true experiments involving physicians in which the outcome variable was the accuracy of the diagnosis. RESULTS: The 43 studies reviewed examined two categories of contextual variables: (a) case-intrinsic contextual information and (b) case-extrinsic contextual information. Case-intrinsic information includes implicit misleading diagnostic suggestions in the disease history of the patient, or emotional volatility of the patient. Case-extrinsic or situational information includes a similar (but different) case seen previously, perceived case difficulty, or external digital diagnostic support. Time pressure and interruptions are other extrinsic influences that may affect the accuracy of a diagnosis but have produced conflicting findings. CONCLUSION: We propose two tentative hypotheses explaining the role of context in diagnostic accuracy. According to the negative-affect hypothesis, diagnostic errors emerge when the physician's attention shifts from the relevant clinical findings to the (irrelevant) source of negative affect (for instance patient aggression) raised in a clinical encounter. The early-diagnosis-primacy hypothesis attributes errors to the extraordinary influence of the initial hypothesis that comes to the physician's mind on the subsequent collecting and interpretation of case information. Future research should test these mechanisms explicitly. Possible alternative mechanisms such as premature closure or increased production of (irrelevant) rival diagnoses in response to context deserve further scrutiny. Implications for medical education and practice are discussed.

Japanese Internists' Most Memorable Diagnostic Error Cases: A Self-reflection Survey.

Objective The etiologies of diagnostic errors among internal medicine physicians are unclear. To understand the causes and characteristics of diagnostic errors through reflection by those involved in them. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire in Japan in January 2019. Over a 10-day period, a total of 2,220 participants agreed to participate in the study, of whom 687 internists were included in the final analysis. Participants were asked about their most memorable diagnostic error cases, in which the time course, situational factors, and psychosocial context could be most vividly recalled and where the participant provided care. We categorized diagnostic errors and identified contributing factors (i.e., situational factors, data collection/interpretation factors, and cognitive biases). Results Two-thirds of the identified diagnostic errors occurred in the clinic or emergency department. Errors were most frequently categorized as wrong diagnoses, followed by delayed and missed diagnoses. Errors most often involved diagnoses related to malignancy, circulatory system disorders, or infectious diseases. Situational factors were the most cited error cause, followed by data collection factors and cognitive bias. Common situational factors included limited consultation during office hours and weekends and barriers that prevented consultation with a supervisor or another department. Conclusion Internists reported situational factors as a significant cause of diagnostic errors. Other factors, such as cognitive biases, were also evident, although the difference in clinical settings may have influenced the proportions of the etiologies of the errors that were observed. Furthermore, wrong, delayed, and missed diagnoses may have distinctive associated cognitive biases.

Diagnostic reasoning from first principles.

Sound diagnostic reasoning is a defining characteristic of the expert clinician. The prevailing psychological model of reasoning describes two systems of thought: a fast, intuitive, but biased (System 1) and a rigorous, analytic, but slow (System 2). Clinicians use both systems during diagnostic reasoning but tend to lean toward a System 1-dominant approach as they get more experienced. This represents a potential source of diagnostic error, perhaps amenable to deliberate System 2 thinking. In this review, first principles reasoning is suggested as a method of System 2 thinking in a diagnostic context. .

Cognitive Bias and Dissonance in Surgical Practice: A Narrative Review.

A cognitive bias describes "shortcuts" subconsciously applied to new scenarios to simplify decision-making. Unintentional introduction of cognitive bias in surgery may result in surgical diagnostic error that leads to delayed surgical care, unnecessary procedures, intraoperative complications, and delayed recognition of postoperative complications. Data suggest that surgical error secondary to the introduction of cognitive bias results in significant harm. Thus, debiasing is a growing area of research which urges practitioners to deliberately slow decision-making to reduce the effects of cognitive bias.

Lo dilemático de un (intento de) suicidio. El que encuentra, atesora / The Dilemma of a (Attempted) Suicide

El suicidio ­o las autolesiones como su antecesor mortífero­ no suelen ser más que una pantalla a un dolor imposible de ser procesado por el sujeto que padece. Las coordenadas que lo atraviesan se amplían, convergen y torsionan en una espiral sin fin cuando ya no quedan recursos para encontrar una salida vital. El proyecto de vida pareciera impensable, en especial, cuando las múltiples versiones de lo ominoso se hacen presentes. Si además el tiempo etario donde aparecen coincide con un tiempo crucial ­adolescencia, jóvenes, adultos mayores­ suele requerirse algún modo de apuntalamiento al Yo en crisis. En este episodio de New Amsterdam vemos como el desinvestimiento subjetivo que produce la invisibilidad del sujeto para los objetos externos diferenciados madre familia (Aulagnier,2004) hacen a una joven intentar construir su identidad bajo un tiempo extremo de angustia

Suicide ­or self-harm like its deadly predecessor­ are usually nothing more than a screen for a pain impossible to be processed by the subject who suffers. The coordinates that pass through it expand, converge and twist in an endless spiral when there are no more resources left to find a vital exit. The life project seems unthinkable, especially when the multiple versions of the ominous are present. If, in addition, the age period in which they appear coincides with a crucial time ­ adolescence, youth, older adults ­ some form of propping up the Self in crisis is usually required. In this episode of New Amsterdam we see how the subjective disinvestment that produces the invisibility of the subject for the differentiated external objects mother-family (Aulagnier, 2004) makes a young woman try to build her identity under an extreme time of anguish

Types of therapeutic errors in the management of osteoporosis made by physicians and medical students.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is of high importance in clinical practice and thus in medical education research. Regarding the clinical reasoning process, the focus has primarily been on diagnostic reasoning and diagnostic errors, but little research has been done on the subsequent management reasoning process, although the therapeutic decision-making process is at least equally important. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of therapeutic decision errors and the cognitive factors leading to these errors in the context of osteoporosis, as it is known to be frequently associated with inadequate treatment decisions in clinical practice worldwide. METHODS: In 2019, 19 medical students and-for comparison-23 physicians worked on ten patient cases with the medical encounter of osteoporosis. A total of 254 cases were processed. The therapeutic decision errors were quantitatively measured, and the participants' cognitive contributions to therapeutic errors and their clinical consequences were qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: In 26% of the cases, all treatment decisions were correct. In the remaining 74% cases, multiple errors occurred; on average, 3 errors occurred per case. These 644 errors were further classified regarding the cognitive contributions to the error. The most common cognitive contributions that led to errors were faulty context generation and interpretation (57% of students, 57% of physicians) and faulty knowledge (38% of students, 35% of physicians). Errors made due to faulty metacognition (5% of students, 8% of physicians) were less common. Consequences of these errors were false therapy (37% of cases), undertreatment (30% of cases) or overtreatment (2.5% of cases). CONCLUSION: The study is the first to show that errors in therapy decisions can be distinguished and classified, similar to the already known classification for errors in diagnostic reasoning. Not only the correct diagnosis, but particularly the correct therapy, is critical for the outcome of a patient.

What Causes Diagnostic Errors? Referred Patients and Our Own Cognitive Biases: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND We emphasize the utility of focusing on patient medical history and concerns rather than anchoring on data sent from referral institutions, which is often qualitative and devoid of useful patient-driven information. CASE REPORT A 21-year-old man was referred to our hospital with persistent back pain, hypoalbuminemia, and C-reactive protein (CRP) elevation after prolonged hospitalization for a UTI at another hospital. A review of systems (ROS) revealed chronic diarrhea and colonoscopy revealed Crohn's disease. Colonoscopy was followed by worsening back pain. Intestinal perforation was ruled out by X-ray, and analgesics were prescribed for long-standing scoliosis. The patient returned several days later with a recurrent UTI; a vesicointestinal fistula was identified, a known complication of Crohn's disease. This case involved diagnostic errors due to the doctors' faulty cognitive process. Also, in retrospect, we needed to be aware that the CT at the time of referral showed free air in the bladder and not uncomplicated pyelonephritis. The diagnostic errors were related to both satisfaction bias (finding one disease that prevents the accurate and timely diagnosis of another) and lack of awareness of epidemiology. To prevent errors like these, it is important to first conduct a careful interview and physical examination, as if the patient were a first-time patient, in order to eliminate the influence of bias. Next, epidemiological possibilities should be considered and differentiation made between physical and epidemiological issues. CONCLUSIONS It is important to treat referral patients as if they were first-time patients and to give due consideration to diagnostic biases and epidemiology.

Narrowing the mindware gap in medicine.

Medical error is now recognized as one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Of the medical errors, diagnostic failure appears to be the dominant contributor, failing in a significant number of cases, and associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. One of the significant contributors to diagnostic failure is the cognitive performance of the provider, how they think and decide about the process of diagnosis. This thinking deficit in clinical reasoning, referred to as a mindware gap, deserves the attention of medical educators. A variety of specific approaches are outlined here that have the potential to close the gap.

Management of premature ejaculation: a clinical guideline from the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (SIAMS).

Premature ejaculation (PE) is the most prevalent male sexual dysfunction, and the most recently defined. PE is often mistakenly considered a purely psychosexological symptom by patients: the lacking awareness in regards to the pathophysiology and treatments often lead to resignation from the patients' side, making PE the most underdiagnosed sexual complaint. However, an ever-growing body of evidence supporting several organic factors has been developed in the last decades and several definitions have been suggested to encompass all defining features of PE. In the present document by the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (SIAMS), we propose 33 recommendations concerning the definition, pathophysiology, treatment and management of PE aimed to improve patient care. These evidence-based clinical guidelines provide the necessary up-to-date guidance in the context of PE secondary to organic and psychosexological conditions, such as prostate inflammation, endocrine disorders, and other sexual dysfunctions, and suggest how to associate pharmacotherapies and cognitive-behavioral therapy in a couple-centered approach. New therapeutic options, as well as combination and off-label treatments, are also described.

Increasing Physician Reporting of Diagnostic Learning Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 10% of Americans experience a diagnostic error annually, yet little is known about pediatric diagnostic errors. Physician reporting is a promising method for identifying diagnostic errors. However, our pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) division had only 1 diagnostic-related safety report in the preceding 4 years. We aimed to improve attending physician reporting of suspected diagnostic errors from 0 to 2 per 100 PHM patient admissions within 6 months. METHODS: Our improvement team used the Model for Improvement, targeting the PHM service. To promote a safe reporting culture, we used the term diagnostic learning opportunity (DLO) rather than diagnostic error, defined as a "potential opportunity to make a better or more timely diagnosis." We developed an electronic reporting form and encouraged its use through reminders, scheduled reflection time, and monthly progress reports. The outcome measure, the number of DLO reports per 100 patient admissions, was tracked on an annotated control chart to assess the effect of our interventions over time. We evaluated DLOs using a formal 2-reviewer process. RESULTS: Over the course of 13 weeks, there was an increase in the number of reports filed from 0 to 1.6 per 100 patient admissions, which met special cause variation, and was subsequently sustained. Most events (66%) were true diagnostic errors and were found to be multifactorial after formal review. CONCLUSIONS: We used quality improvement methodology, focusing on psychological safety, to increase physician reporting of DLOs. This growing data set has generated nuanced learnings that will guide future improvement work.

The Importance of Incorporating Human Factors in the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Diagnosis in the Real World.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been shown to diagnose skin lesions with impressive accuracy in experimental settings. The majority of the literature to date has compared AI and dermatologists as opponents in skin cancer diagnosis. However, in the real-world clinical setting, the clinician will work in collaboration with AI. Existing evidence regarding the integration of such AI diagnostic tools into clinical practice is limited. Human factors, such as cognitive style, personality, experience, preferences, and attitudes may influence clinicians' use of AI. In this review, we consider these human factors and the potential cognitive errors, biases, and unintended consequences that could arise when using an AI skin cancer diagnostic tool in the real world. Integrating this knowledge in the design and implementation of AI technology will assist in ensuring that the end product can be used effectively. Dermatologist leadership in the development of these tools will further improve their clinical relevance and safety.

Review of the Basics of Cognitive Error in Emergency Medicine: Still No Easy Answers.

Emergency physicians (EP) make clinical decisions multiple times daily. In some instances, medical errors occur due to flaws in the complex process of clinical reasoning and decision-making. Cognitive error can be difficult to identify and is equally difficult to prevent. To reduce the risk of patient harm resulting from errors in critical thinking, it has been proposed that we train physicians to understand and maintain awareness of their thought process, to identify error-prone clinical situations, to recognize predictable vulnerabilities in thinking, and to employ strategies to avert cognitive errors. The first step to this approach is to gain an understanding of how physicians make decisions and what conditions may predispose to faulty decision-making. We review the dual-process theory, which offers a framework to understand both intuitive and analytical reasoning, and to identify the necessary conditions to support optimal cognitive processing. We also discuss systematic deviations from normative reasoning known as cognitive biases, which were first described in cognitive psychology and have been identified as a contributing factor to errors in medicine. Training physicians in common biases and strategies to mitigate their effect is known as debiasing. A variety of debiasing techniques have been proposed for use by clinicians. We sought to review the current evidence supporting the effectiveness of these strategies in the clinical setting. This discussion of improving clinical reasoning is relevant to medical educators as well as practicing EPs engaged in continuing medical education.

Regret among primary care physicians: a survey of diagnostic decisions.

BACKGROUND: Experienced and anticipated regret influence physicians' decision-making. In medicine, diagnostic decisions and diagnostic errors can have a severe impact on both patients and physicians. Little empirical research exists on regret experienced by physicians when they make diagnostic decisions in primary care that later prove inappropriate or incorrect. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of regret following diagnostic decisions in primary care. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used an online questionnaire on a sample of German primary care physicians. We asked participants to report on cases in which the final diagnosis differed from their original opinion, and in which treatment was at the very least delayed, possibly resulting in harm to the patient. We asked about original and final diagnoses, illness trajectories, and the reactions of other physicians, patients and relatives. We used thematic analysis to assess the data, supported by MAXQDA 11 and Microsoft Excel 2016. RESULTS: 29 GPs described one case each (14 female/15 male patients, aged 1.5-80 years, response rate < 1%). In 26 of 29 cases, the final diagnosis was more serious than the original diagnosis. In two cases, the diagnoses were equally serious, and in one case less serious. Clinical trajectories and the reactions of patients and relatives differed widely. Although only one third of cases involved preventable harm to patients, the vast majority (27 of 29) of physicians expressed deep feelings of regret. CONCLUSION: Even if harm to patients is unavoidable, regret following diagnostic decisions can be devastating for clinicians, making them 'second victims'. Procedures and tools are needed to analyse cases involving undesirable diagnostic events, so that 'true' diagnostic errors, in which harm could have been prevented, can be distinguished from others. Further studies should also explore how physicians can be supported in dealing with such events in order to prevent them from practicing defensive medicine.

[Do artificial intelligence systems reason in the same way as clinicians when making diagnoses?] / Une intelligence artificielle raisonne-t-elle de la même façon que les cliniciens pour poser des diagnostics ?

Clinical reasoning is at the heart of physicians' competence, as it allows them to make diagnoses. However, diagnostic errors are common, due to the existence of reasoning biases. Artificial intelligence is undergoing unprecedented development in this context. It is increasingly seen as a solution to improve the diagnostic performance of physicians, or even to perform this task for them, in a totally autonomous and more efficient way. In order to understand the challenges associated with the development of artificial intelligence, it is important to understand how the machine works to make diagnoses, what are the similarities and differences with the physician's diagnostic reasoning, and what are the consequences for medical training and practice.

Childhood eye cancer from a parental perspective: The lived experience of parents with children who have had retinoblastoma.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the lived experience of parents with children who have had retinoblastoma. METHODS: The study adopted a qualitative approach using the data collection method of written accounts. Eleven parents were recruited via snowball sampling from across the UK. Parents were asked to retrospectively produce a written account of their experiences. These narrative autobiographical accounts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis elicited three themes: waiting and misdiagnosis; emotional rollercoaster; and support needs. Parents described experiencing prolonged periods of waiting from referral to clinical investigations and the implementation of a treatment plan. Difficulties in obtaining an accurate diagnosis for their child elicited anxiety for parents. Emotions were described in terms of a rollercoaster with highs and lows and times of despair, anger, relief, and hope. Experiences of personal support varied and had lasting impacts on relationships. However, the support from other parents with a child with retinoblastoma was perceived to be instrumental in facilitating coping. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show parental experiences were characterised by numerous difficulties and suggest a need for greater awareness of childhood eye cancer. This research highlights the importance of psychological and social support for parents of a child with retinoblastoma.

Avoiding Misdiagnosis When Auditory Verbal Hallucinations Are Present in Borderline Personality Disorder.

Misdiagnosis is common for patients with a primary diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who experience auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs). AVHs in BPD are associated with severe BPD and high levels of suicidality. Wrongly treating these patients as though they are suffering from schizophrenia or other primary psychotic disorder and not treating BPD can cause significant iatrogenic damage. We outline a specific pattern of symptoms and phenomenology that will assist diagnostic accuracy in these cases. A focused review identified the following characteristic pattern: AVHs in BPD cannot be distinguished phenomenologically from AVH in schizophrenia, often meet the criteria for First-Rank Symptoms (FRSs), are highly stress related, and are strongly associated with dissociative experiences and childhood trauma. Formal thought disorder is uncommon, negative symptoms are usually absent, bizarre delusions are absent, affect remains reactive, and sociability is usually retained. Diagnostic accuracy can be improved by examining the overall clinical presentation and is essential to improving the prognosis for these patients.

Guessing right - whether and how medical students give incorrect reasons for their correct diagnoses.

Background: Clinical reasoning is one of the central competencies in everyday clinical practice. Diagnostic competence is often measured based on diagnostic accuracy. It is implicitly assumed that a correct diagnosis is based on a proper diagnostic process, although this has never been empirically tested. The frequency and nature of errors in students' diagnostic processes in correctly solved cases was analyzed in this study. Method: 148 medical students processed 15 virtual patient cases in internal medicine. After each case, they were asked to state their final diagnosis and justify it. These explanations were qualitatively analyzed and assigned to one of the following three categories: correct explanation, incorrect explanation and diagnosis guessed right. Results: The correct diagnosis was made 1,135 times out of 2,080 diagnostic processes. The analysis of the associated diagnostic explanations showed that 92% (1,042) reasoning processes were correct, 7% (80) were incorrect, and 1% (13) of the diagnoses were guessed right. Causes of incorrect diagnostic processes were primarily a lack of pathophysiological knowledge (50%) and a lack of diagnostic skills (30%). Conclusion: Generally, if the diagnosis is correct, the diagnostic process is also correct. The rate of guessed diagnoses is quite low at 1%. Nevertheless, about every 14th correct diagnosis is based on a false diagnostic explanation and thus, a wrong diagnostic process. To assess the diagnostic competence, both the diagnosis result and the diagnostic process should be recorded.