Effect of Availability Bias and Reflective Reasoning on Diagnostic Accuracy Among Internal Medicine Residents

Department of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062 PA, The Netherlands.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 09/2010; 304(11):1198-203. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1276
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Diagnostic errors have been associated with bias in clinical reasoning. Empirical evidence on the cognitive mechanisms underlying biases and effectiveness of educational strategies to counteract them is lacking.
To investigate whether recent experience with clinical problems provokes availability bias (overestimation of the likelihood of a diagnosis based on the ease with which it comes to mind) resulting in diagnostic errors and whether reflection (structured reanalysis of the case findings) counteracts this bias.
Experimental study conducted in 2009 at the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, with 18 first-year and 18 second-year internal medicine residents. Participants first evaluated diagnoses of 6 clinical cases (phase 1). Subsequently, they diagnosed 8 different cases through nonanalytical reasoning, 4 of which had findings similar to previously evaluated cases but different diagnoses (phase 2). These 4 cases were subsequently diagnosed again through reflective reasoning (phase 3).
Mean diagnostic accuracy scores (perfect score, 4.0) on cases solved with or without previous exposure to similar problems through nonanalytical (phase 2) or reflective (phase 3) reasoning and frequency that a potentially biased (ie, phase 1) diagnosis was given.
There were no main effects, but there was a significant interaction effect between "years of training" and "recent experiences with similar problems." Results consistent with an availability bias occurred for the second-year residents, who scored lower on the cases similar to those previously encountered (1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.96) than on the other cases (2.19; 95% CI, 1.73-2.66; P =.03). This pattern was not seen among the first-year residents (2.03; 95% CI, 1.55-2.51 vs 1.42; 95% CI, 0.92-1.92; P =.046). Second-year residents provided the phase 1 diagnosis more frequently for phase 2 cases they had previously encountered than for those they had not (mean frequency per resident, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.93-1.96 vs 0.72; 95% CI, 0.28-1.17; P =.04). A significant main effect of reasoning mode was found: reflection improved the diagnoses of the similar cases compared with nonanalytical reasoning for the second-year residents (2.03; 95% CI, 1.49-2.57) and the first-year residents (2.31; 95% CI, 1.89-2.73; P =.006).
When faced with cases similar to previous ones and using nonanalytic reasoning, second-year residents made errors consistent with the availability bias. Subsequent application of diagnostic reflection tended to counter this bias; it improved diagnostic accuracy in both first- and second-year residents.

Download full-text


Available from: Jan van Saase, Aug 20, 2014
  • Source
    • "In our study, other heuristics and biases appeared to be independent of level of training. This result differs from those reported by Mamede et al. (2010), which studied the diagnostic reasoning processes of 1st and 2nd-year internal medicine residents. These authors found that 2nd-year residents committed the availability bias significantly more than their 1st year colleagues. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is threefold: (1) to develop an automated, computer-based method to detect heuristics and biases as pathologists examine virtual slide cases, (2) to measure the frequency and distribution of heuristics and errors across three levels of training, and (3) to examine relationships of heuristics to biases, and biases to diagnostic errors. The authors conducted the study using a computer-based system to view and diagnose virtual slide cases. The software recorded participant responses throughout the diagnostic process, and automatically classified participant actions based on definitions of eight common heuristics and/or biases. The authors measured frequency of heuristic use and bias across three levels of training. Biases studied were detected at varying frequencies, with availability and search satisficing observed most frequently. There were few significant differences by level of training. For representativeness and anchoring, the heuristic was used appropriately as often or more often than it was used in biased judgment. Approximately half of the diagnostic errors were associated with one or more biases. We conclude that heuristic use and biases were observed among physicians at all levels of training using the virtual slide system, although their frequencies varied. The system can be employed to detect heuristic use and to test methods for decreasing diagnostic errors resulting from cognitive biases.
    Advances in Health Sciences Education 05/2012; 18(3). DOI:10.1007/s10459-012-9374-z · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Improve system 1 processing: improve metacognition, intuition and reflective practice Mamede et al 21 (2010) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Errors in clinical reasoning occur in most cases in which the diagnosis is missed, delayed or wrong. The goal of this review was to identify interventions that might reduce the likelihood of these cognitive errors. We searched PubMed and other medical and non-medical databases and identified additional literature through references from the initial data set and suggestions from subject matter experts. Articles were included if they either suggested a possible intervention or formally evaluated an intervention and excluded if they focused solely on improving diagnostic tests or provider satisfaction. We identified 141 articles for full review, 42 reporting tested interventions to reduce the likelihood of cognitive errors, 100 containing suggestions, and one article with both suggested and tested interventions. Articles were classified into three categories: (1) Interventions to improve knowledge and experience, such as simulation-based training, improved feedback and education focused on a single disease; (2) Interventions to improve clinical reasoning and decision-making skills, such as reflective practice and active metacognitive review; and (3) Interventions that provide cognitive 'help' that included use of electronic records and integrated decision support, informaticians and facilitating access to information, second opinions and specialists. We identified a wide range of possible approaches to reduce cognitive errors in diagnosis. Not all the suggestions have been tested, and of those that have, the evaluations typically involved trainees in artificial settings, making it difficult to extrapolate the results to actual practice. Future progress in this area will require methodological refinements in outcome evaluation and rigorously evaluating interventions already suggested, many of which are well conceptualised and widely endorsed.
    BMJ quality & safety 04/2012; 21(7):535-57. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 09/2010; 304(11):1233-5. DOI:10.1001/jama.2010.1336 · 30.39 Impact Factor
Show more