Use of heuristics during the clinical decision process from family care physicians in real conditions.

RATIONALE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The available evidence on the use of heuristics and their relationship with diagnostic error in primary care is very limited. The aim of the study is to identify the use of unknown thought and specifically the possible use of Representativeness, Availability and overconfidence heuristics in the clinical practice of primary care physicians in cases of dyspnoea and to analyse their possible relationship with diagnostic error. METHODS: A total of 371 patients consulting with new episodes of dyspnoea in Primary Care centres in Spain were registered. Based on specific operational definitions, the use of unconscious thinking and the use of heuristics during the diagnostic process were assessed. Subsequently, the association between their use and diagnostic error was analysed. RESULTS: In 49.6% of cases, the confirmatory diagnosis coincided with the first diagnostic impression, suggesting the use of the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. In 82.3% of the cases, the confirmatory diagnosis was among the three diagnostic hypotheses that were first identified by the general physicians, suggesting a possible use of the availability heuristic. In more than 50% of the cases, the physicians were overconfident in the certainty of their own diagnosis. Finally, a diagnostic error was identified in 9.9% of the recorded cases and no statistically significant correlation was found between the use of some unconscious thinking tools (such as the use of heuristics) and the diagnostic error. CONCLUSION: Unconscious thinking manifested through the acceptance of the first diagnostic impression and the use of heuristics is commonly used by primary care physicians in the clinical decision process in the face of new episodes of dyspnoea; however, its influence on diagnostic error is not significant. The proposed explicit and reproducible methodology may inspire further studies to confirm these results.

[Diagnostic error and overdiagnosis in Primary Care. Proposals for the improvement of clinical practice family medicine]. / El error diagnóstico y sobrediagnóstico en Atención Primaria. Propuestas para la mejora de la práctica clínica en medicina de familia.

Family doctors see a wide range of patients, with a wide range of complexity, in a short time and with few diagnostic resources. This situation makes primary care professionals more vulnerable to diagnostic errors. For this reason, an adequate clinical reasoning process is the most powerful tool family doctors have to safely guide the patient care process. Considering these errors as missed opportunities for a correct diagnosis, which may cause harm to the patient, leads us as professionals to review how to improve this process. The review includes, among other aspects, identifying cognitive biases, analysing the ways in which work is organised in primary care teams, and situations in the care context that may contribute to such errors. In this article we describe the most frequent diagnostic errors and their causal factors in primary care, the impact of cognitive process failures, situations of overdiagnosis and the diagnostic and therapeutic cascades associated with them. Finally, we propose a set of tools to improve decision-making in the diagnostic process in primary care.

Has COVID-19 changed the workload for primary care physicians? The case of Spain.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a massive over-exertion of doctors, multiplying their work intensity, overload and stress. Yet no studies have been conducted on the changes in primary care physician overload during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To address this research gap, the aim of this article is to document the subjective dimensions of physicians' work during the peak of the pandemic for comparison with a pre-COVID-19 situation. In addition, the relationship between workload and the individual characteristics of the physician or the percentage of tele-assistance is examined. METHODS: This study performs a subjective measurement procedure for the analysis of work overload through the NASA-TLX questionnaire, with a total of 102 records from 16 doctors from a Primary Health Centers of the Granada-Metropolitan Health district (Andalusia, Spain). RESULTS: The results reflect a significantly higher workload during COVID-19 in relation to a previous situation (66.1% versus 48.6% before COVID-19). All the dimensions of the NASA-TLX test suffered an increase during the COVID-19, this increase being higher in the physical, temporal and frustration levels. Interestingly, the findings reflect the higher the percentage of telematic consultations, the lower workload. CONCLUSIONS: Work overload and the emotional state of health workers is one of the many repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results derived from this study may be useful in formulating policies and practices related to the workforce development, funding streams to prepare for the next wave of COVID-19 infections as well as for future public health emergencies.

Uso de heurísticos y error diagnóstico en Atención Primaria: revisión panorámica / Effect of the use of heuristics on diagnostic error in Primary Care: Scoping review

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la evidencia sobre el uso de heurísticos de representatividad, disponibilidad, anclaje y ajuste y exceso de confianza en la práctica clínica real, específicamente en el ámbito de la Atención Primaria. DISEÑO: Revisión panorámica (scoping review). Fuentes de datos: Bases de datos de OvidMedline, Scopus, PsycoINFO, Cochrane Library y PubMed. Con el fin de facilitar la comprensión y replicabilidad de los estudios seleccionados se revisaron aplicando los criterios TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication). Selección de estudios: Se seleccionaron 48 estudios que analizaban heurísticos de disponibilidad (26), anclaje y ajuste (9), exceso de confianza (9) y representatividad (8). RESULTADOS: La población de estudio incluía médicos (35,4%), pacientes (27%), residentes (20,8%), enfermeros (14,5%) y estudiantes (14,5%). Los estudios realizados en condiciones reales fueron 17 (35,4%). En 33 de los 48 estudios se observó el empleo del heurístico analizado en la población estudiada (68,7%). El uso de heurísticos durante el proceso diagnóstico fue analizado en 27 estudios (54,1%); en 5 de ellos, el estudio se realizó en escenarios reales (18%). De los 48 estudios, 6 se realizaron en Atención Primaria (12,5%), 3 de los cuales analizaban el proceso diagnóstico: solo en uno de los 3 se analizó el uso de heurístico en condiciones reales, sin demostrar la existencia de sesgo. CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia empírica disponible sobre la utilización de heurísticos y su papel en el error diagnóstico en condiciones reales es limitada. En particular, en el caso del proceso de decisión diagnóstica en Atención Primaria la evidencia es prácticamente inexistente

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of representativeness, availability, overconfidence, anchoring and adjustment heuristics in clinical practice, specifically in Primary Care setting. DESIGN: Panoramic review (scope review). Data sources: OvidMedline, Scopus, PsycoINFO, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. Each one of the selected studies was reviewed applying TIDIER criteria (Template for Description of the Intervention and Replication) to facilitate their understanding and replicability. Selection of studies: A total of 48 studies were selected that analyzed availability heuristics (26), anchoring and adjustment (9), overconfidence (9) and representativeness (8). RESULTS: From the 48 studies selected, 26 analyzed availability heuristics, 9 anchoring and adjustment, 9 overconfidence; and 8 representativeness. The study population included physicians (35.4%), patients (27%), trainees (20.8%), nurses (14.5%) and students (14.5%). The studies conducted in clinical practice setting were 17 (35.4%). In 33 of the 48 studies (68,7%) it was observed heuristic use in the population studied. Heuristics use on diagnostic process was found in 27 studies (54.1%); 5 of them (18%) were carried out in clinical practice setting. Of the 48 studies, 6 (12,5%) were performed in Primary Care, 3 of which studied diagnostic process: only one of them analyzed the use of heuristics in clinical practice setting, without demonstrating bias as consequence of the use of heuristic. CONCLUSION: The evidence about heuristic use in diagnostic process on clinical practice setting is limited, especially in Primary Care

[Effect of the use of heuristics on diagnostic error in Primary Care: Scoping review]. / Uso de heurísticos y error diagnóstico en Atención Primaria: revisión panorámica.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of representativeness, availability, overconfidence, anchoring and adjustment heuristics in clinical practice, specifically in Primary Care setting. DESIGN: Panoramic review (scope review). DATA SOURCES: OvidMedline, Scopus, PsycoINFO, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. Each one of the selected studies was reviewed applying TIDIER criteria (Template for Description of the Intervention and Replication) to facilitate their understanding and replicability. SELECTION OF STUDIES: A total of 48 studies were selected that analyzed availability heuristics (26), anchoring and adjustment (9), overconfidence (9) and representativeness (8). RESULTS: From the 48 studies selected, 26 analyzed availability heuristics, 9 anchoring and adjustment, 9 overconfidence; and 8 representativeness. The study population included physicians (35.4%), patients (27%), trainees (20.8%), nurses (14.5%) and students (14.5%). The studies conducted in clinical practice setting were 17 (35.4%). In 33 of the 48 studies (68,7%) it was observed heuristic use in the population studied. Heuristics use on diagnostic process was found in 27 studies (54.1%); 5 of them (18%) were carried out in clinical practice setting. Of the 48 studies, 6 (12,5%) were performed in Primary Care, 3 of which studied diagnostic process: only one of them analyzed the use of heuristics in clinical practice setting, without demonstrating bias as consequence of the use of heuristic. CONCLUSION: The evidence about heuristic use in diagnostic process on clinical practice setting is limited, especially in Primary Care.

Respuesta a: Reflexiones sobre "Visión crítica y argumentación sobre los programas de atención a la cronicidad en Atención Primaria y Comunitaria" / Response to: Reflections on "Critical view and argumentation on chronic care programs in Primary and Community Care"

No disponible

[Evaluation of Primary Care Accessibility and Longitudinality in Granada Using Primary Care Assessment Tools]. / Evaluación de la accesibilidad y la longitudinalidad de la Atención Primaria de Granada mediante Primary Care Assessment Tools (PCAT).

OBJECTIVE: To assess accessibility and longitudinality performance in Primary Care Teams of Granada from the point of view of Clinical Team Leaders. Any differences will also be determined in the performance of these 2functions depending on the environment of the Primary Care Centres (urban, rural or suburban). METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive study using the "Primary Care Assessment Tool" (PCAT) questionnaire on all Primary Care Team managers from "Granada-Metropolitan" Primary Health Care District (n = 35). The Objective functions were described using the mean numerical scores obtained through the questionnaire. A mean score of ≥3 shows good performance. A bivariate analysis by Prevalence ORs was performed to study the factors related to a good performance. RESULTS: Granada-Metropolitan Primary Health District achieved a good accessibility performance (3.03). Differences were found depending on the Primary Care Team environment (OR rural/urban=32). Only Primary Care Centres with emergency services had a good accessibility scores. A good longitudinality performance was assessed by 94% of Clinical Team Leaders, with a better performance in the urban areas (OR urban/rural = 7.5). Primary Care Teams with trainees in Family and Community Medicine achieved better longitudinality results. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Care Teams from Granada Primary Health Care District achieved a good performance in Accessibility and Longitudinality in the PCAT Facilities questionnaire, from the point of view of their Clinical Team Leaders. However, it would be interesting to check these items from a user and provider perspective. According to this study, good accessibility was related to the availability of emergency services.

Visión crítica y argumentación sobre los programas de atención de la cronicidad en Atención Primaria y Comunitaria / Critical view and argumentation on chronic care programs in Primary and Community Care

El análisis detallado de los planes de atención a la cronicidad desarrollados por los servicios regionales de salud pone de manifiesto un sorprendente nivel de uniformidad en su diseño y despliegue, a pesar de las diferencias existentes entre dichos servicios. La revisión de la literatura sobre los modelos teóricos que lo sustentan y los instrumentos que lo desarrollan no aporta evidencias concluyentes que permitan afirmar que los modelos de atención a pacientes crónicos alcanzan mejores resultados que modelos de atención alternativos. A pesar de que todos los planes de atención a la cronicidad incluyen sistemas de evaluación de los mismos, no se han publicado hasta la fecha estudios rigurosos sobre su efecto. Dado que, por el contrario, sí existen pruebas sólidas y reiteradas de que modelos con una Atención Primaria fuerte obtienen mejores resultados, cabe preguntarse sobre la necesidad de buscar modelos alternativos, cuando las metas propuestas probablemente podrían alcanzarse de fortalecer realmente la Atención Primaria (AU)

The detailed analysis of the chronic care plans developed by the Spanish regional health services show a surprising level of uniformity in their design and deployment, despite differences between these services. The reviews about theoretical models that support it and tools they develop does not provide conclusive evidence to support the chronic care models achieve better results than another alternatives of care. Although the whole Spanish chronic care plans includes assessment proposals no rigorous studies on their effect have been published to date. Given that, on the contrary, there is a strong and repeated evidence that health systems with Primary Care high performance obtains better outcomes, it is necessary to ask about the need to look for alternative models, when the proposed goals could be reached strengthen Primary Care (AU)

[Critical view and argumentation on chronic care programs in Primary and Community Care]. / Visión crítica y argumentación sobre los programas de atención de la cronicidad en Atención Primaria y Comunitaria.

The detailed analysis of the chronic care plans developed by the Spanish regional health services show a surprising level of uniformity in their design and deployment, despite differences between these services. The reviews about theoretical models that support it and tools they develop does not provide conclusive evidence to support the chronic care models achieve better results than another alternatives of care. Although the whole Spanish chronic care plans includes assessment proposals no rigorous studies on their effect have been published to date. Given that, on the contrary, there is a strong and repeated evidence that health systems with Primary Care high performance obtains better outcomes, it is necessary to ask about the need to look for alternative models, when the proposed goals could be reached strengthen Primary Care.

El error diagnóstico en atención primaria / The diagnostic error in primary care

No disponible

Lecciones desde fuera. Otros países en ésta y otras crisis anteriores. Informe SESPAS 2014 / Lessons from abroad. Current and previous crisis in other countries. SESPAS report 2014

La evidencia acumulada sobre el efecto de crisis anteriores en la salud presenta patrones muy diferenciados atribuibles al diseño de los estudios, a la naturaleza de cada crisis y a otros factores del entorno socioeconómico y político. Existe, no obstante, un consenso cada vez mayor sobre el papel mediador de las respuestas políticas de los gobiernos, que pueden magnificar, o al contrario mitigar, los efectos adversos de las crisis. Estudios recientes revelan un deterioro en algunos indicadores de salud en el contexto de la crisis actual, fundamentalmente en salud mental y enfermedades transmisibles. En algunos países europeos también se ha constatado un descenso en el consumo de tabaco y alcohol. Por otro lado, algunos gobiernos están haciendo uso del contexto de crisis para avanzar reformas tendentes a la privatización de servicios y prestaciones sanitarias, restringiendo con ello el derecho a la salud y a la atención sanitaria. Se está actuando sobre los tres ejes que determinan el campo de la financiación de los sistemas sanitarios: la población protegida, la contribución del usuario y la cobertura de servicios. Estas medidas están siendo adoptadas a menudo de manera arbitraria basándose en decisiones ideológicas más que en la evidencia disponible, de lo que cabría esperar consecuencias adversas en términos de protección financiera, eficiencia y equidad (AU)

The evidence available on the impact of previous crises on health reveals different patterns attributable to study designs, the characteristics of each crisis, and other factors related to the socioeconomic and political context. There is greater consensus on the mediating role of government policy responses to financial crises. These responses may magnify or mitigate the adverse effects of crises on population health. Some studies have shown a significant deterioration in some health indicators in the context of the current crisis, mainly in relation to mental health and communicable diseases. Alcohol and tobacco use have also declined in some European countries. In addition, this crisis is being used by some governments to push reforms aimed at privatizing health services, thereby restricting the right to health and healthcare. Specifically, action is being taken on the three axes that determine health system financing: the population covered, the scope of services, and the share of the costs covered. These measures are often arbitrarily implemented based on ideological decisions rather than on the available evidence and therefore adverse consequences are to be expected in terms of financial protection, efficiency, and equity (AU)

[Lessons from abroad. Current and previous crisis in other countries. SESPAS report 2014]. / Lecciones desde fuera. Otros países en ésta y otras crisis anteriores. Informe SESPAS 2014.

The evidence available on the impact of previous crises on health reveals different patterns attributable to study designs, the characteristics of each crisis, and other factors related to the socioeconomic and political context. There is greater consensus on the mediating role of government policy responses to financial crises. These responses may magnify or mitigate the adverse effects of crises on population health. Some studies have shown a significant deterioration in some health indicators in the context of the current crisis, mainly in relation to mental health and communicable diseases. Alcohol and tobacco use have also declined in some European countries. In addition, this crisis is being used by some governments to push reforms aimed at privatizing health services, thereby restricting the right to health and healthcare. Specifically, action is being taken on the three axes that determine health system financing: the population covered, the scope of services, and the share of the costs covered. These measures are often arbitrarily implemented based on ideological decisions rather than on the available evidence and therefore adverse consequences are to be expected in terms of financial protection, efficiency, and equity.