Article

Diagnostic errors and reflective practice in medicine.

Innovare Institute, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Impact Factor: 1.51). 03/2007; 13(1):138-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00638.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Adverse effects of medical errors have received increasing attention. Diagnostic errors account for a substantial fraction of all medical errors, and strategies for their prevention have been explored. A crucial requirement for that is better understanding of origins of medical errors. Research on medical expertise may contribute to that as far as it explains reasoning processes involved in clinical judgements. The literature has indicated the capability of critically reflecting upon one's own practice as a key requirement for developing and maintaining medical expertise throughout life.
This article explores potential relationships between reflective practice and diagnostic errors.
A survey of the medical expertise literature was conducted. Origins of medical errors frequently reported in the literature were explored. The potential relationship between diagnostic errors and the several dimensions of reflective practice in medicine, brought to light by recent research, were theoretically explored.
Uncertainty and fallibility inherent to clinical judgements are discussed. Stages in the diagnostic reasoning process where errors could occur and their potential sources are highlighted, including the role of medical heuristics and biases. The authors discuss the nature of reflective practice in medicine, and explore whether and how the several behaviours and reasoning processes that constitute reflective practice could minimize diagnostic errors. Future directions for further research are discussed. They involve empirical research on the role of reflective practice in improving clinical reasoning and the development of educational strategies to enhancing reflective practice.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
211 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An increasing focus on the prevention of medical errors is a direct result of a growing patient safety movement. Although the reduction of technical errors has been the focus of most interventions, cognitive errors, usually more than one error linked together, actually cause the majority of misdiagnoses. This article examines the most common types of cognitive errors in dermatology. Two methods to minimize these errors are recommended: first, cognitive debiasing techniques reduce the common initiating factor of error cascades; and secondly, the application of prospective hindsight attacks the final common pathway that leads to misdiagnosis.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 11/2013; 69(5):810-813. · 4.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inleiding Het noodzakelijke denkproces voor het nemen van de juiste beslissingen tijdens het praktische, fysiotherapeutische handelen wordt klinisch redeneren genoemd. In het algemeen wordt aangenomen dat flexibiliteit in het denkproces en een goed gestructureerde kennisbasis hieraan ten grondslag liggen. Vraagstelling Dit onderzoek is gericht op de vraag of in de perceptie van de studenten het competentiegericht onderwijs (CGO), ingericht volgens het 4 C/ID-model, het klinisch redeneren binnen de domeinen flexibiliteit in het denkproces en kennisstructuur, meer bevordert dan het meer traditionele, probleemgestuurde onderwijs (PGO). Methode Aan de hand van een vragenlijst die het klinisch redeneren in kaart brengt (met subschalen in de domeinen flexibiliteit in het denkproces en kennisstructuur), zijn vierdejaars studenten van het cohort 2004 (n=58) en van het cohort 2006 (n=34) van de opleiding Fysiotherapie van de Hogeschool Zuyd te Heerlen met elkaar vergeleken. Daarbij werd een ongepaarde student t-toets uitgevoerd. Resultaten Het resultaat van dit onderzoek laat zien dat in de perceptie van de studenten een statistisch significante verbetering is opgetreden in het klinisch redeneren van de vierdejaars studenten uit het cohort 2006 die het CGO volgden in vergelijking met studenten uit het cohort 2004 die het meer traditionele PGO doorliepen (klinisch redeneren p=0.01 en meer specifiek in het domein flexibiliteit in denken p=0.01 en kennisstructuur p=0.03). Conclusie en discussie Meer onderzoek is nodig naar de wijze waarop CGO het klinisch redeneren van studenten helpt verbeteren, naar de factoren die dit proces mede beïnvloeden en naar objectieve meetinstrumenten om het klinisch redeneren te kunnen evalueren. (Gerards-Last D, Geraets J. Klinisch redeneren in het fysiotherapie onderwijs. Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs 2011;30(5):226-236.)
    Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs. 05/2011; 30(5).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The quality and safety of health care are under increasing scrutiny. Recent studies suggest that medical errors, practice variability, and guideline noncompliance are common, and that cognitive error contributes significantly to delayed or incorrect diagnoses. These observations have increased interest in understanding decision-making psychology.Many nonrational (i.e., not purely based in statistics) cognitive factors influence medical decisions and may lead to error. The most well-studied include heuristics, preferences for certainty, overconfidence, affective (emotional) influences, memory distortions, bias, and social forces such as fairness or blame.Although the extent to which such cognitive processes play a role in anesthesia practice is unknown, anesthesia care frequently requires rapid, complex decisions that are most susceptible to decision errors. This review will examine current theories of human decision behavior, identify effects of nonrational cognitive processes on decision-making, describe characteristic anesthesia decisions in this context, and suggest strategies to improve decision-making.
    Anesthesiology 11/2013; · 5.16 Impact Factor