Becoming Less Wrong (and More Rational) in Clinical Decisionmaking

Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise

RATIONALE

Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In the present paper, we take issue with these claims.

METHOD

We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence.

RESULTS

We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory-that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning.

CONCLUSIONS

The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.

Non-clinical intuitions and adaptive heuristics in emergency care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Across a range of fields, including healthcare, heuristics are typically conceived as a source of bias and systematic error. However, research across the psychological and management sciences shows that intuition and heuristics are also vital sources of adaptive decision strategies, especially in complex, uncertain environments. The complexity of the emergency care environment marks this environment as one in which non-clinical intuitions and heuristics are likely to emerge and function as adaptive decision strategies. The aim of this study was to map and contextualize what is known about leadership and non-clinical intuitions and heuristics in emergency care.

METHODS

Based on a systematic search of the Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE and CINAHL electronic databases, we conducted a scoping review to map what is known about leadership and non-clinical intuitions and adaptive heuristics in emergency care.

RESULTS

Of the 1219 articles retrieved, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Our review revealed four key findings. First, intuitions are used to make judgments about patients, caring for patients, and coordinating with colleagues. Second, although non-clinical intuitions are documented, non-clinical heuristics are rarely studied. Third, the literature is focused on nurses and silent on the use of non-clinical intuition and heuristics among medical doctors. Finally, professional cultures influence clinicians' use of intuitive sense- and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the dearth of research into non-clinical intuitions and heuristics in emergency care. Understood in the context of insights from the psychological and management sciences about intuitions and 'smart' heuristics as adaptive decision strategies, our findings point to new frontiers of research into leadership in emergency care.

Cognitive and implicit biases in nurses' judgment and decision-making: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Cognitive and implicit biases of healthcare providers can lead to adverse events in healthcare and have been identified as a patient safety concern. Most research on the impact of these systematic errors in judgment has been focused on diagnostic decision-making, primarily by physicians. As the largest component of the workforce, nurses make numerous decisions that affect patient outcomes; however, literature on nurses' clinical judgment often overlooks the potential impact of bias on these decisions. The aim of this study was to map the evidence and key concepts related to bias in nurses' judgment and decision-making, including interventions to correct or overcome these biases.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs methodology. In November 2020 we searched CINAHL, PsychInfo, and PubMed databases to identify relevant literature. Inclusion criteria were primary research about nurses' bias; evidence of a nursing decision or action; and English language. No date or geographic limitations were set.

RESULTS

We found 77 items that met the inclusion criteria. Over half of these items were published in the last 12 years. Most research focused on implicit biases related to racial/ethnic identity, obesity, and gender; other articles examined confirmation, attribution, anchoring, and hindsight biases. Some articles examined heuristics and were included if they described the process of, and the problems with, nurse decision-making. Only 5 studies tested interventions to overcome or correct biases. 61 of the studies relied on vignettes, surveys, or recall methods, rather than examining real-world nursing practice. This could be a serious oversight because contextual factors such as cognitive load, which have a significant impact on judgment and decision-making, are not necessarily captured with vignette or survey studies. Furthermore, survey and vignette studies make it difficult to quantify the impact of these biases in the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the serious effects that bias has on nurses' clinical judgment, and thereby patient outcomes, a concerted, systematic effort to identify and test debiasing strategies in real-world nursing settings is needed.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Bias affects nurses' clinical judgment - we need to know how to fix it.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Cognitive bias and medical error in obstetrics-challenges and opportunities

The processes of diagnosis and management involve clinical decision-making. However, decision-making is often affected by cognitive biases that can lead to medical errors. This statement presents a framework of clinical thinking and decision-making and shows how these processes can be bias-prone. We review examples of cognitive bias in obstetrics and introduce debiasing tools and strategies. When an adverse event or near miss is reviewed, the concept of a cognitive autopsy-a root cause analysis of medical decision-making and the potential influence of cognitive biases-is promoted as part of the review process. Finally, areas for future research on cognitive bias in obstetrics are suggested.

The Undertriage of Older Adults in the Emergency Department: A Review of Interventions

The Research to Practice column is intended to improve the research critique skills of the advanced practice registered nurse and the emergency nurse and to assist with the translation of research into practice. A topic and a research study are selected for each column. A patient scenario is presented as a vehicle, in which to review and critique, the findings of the selected research study. In this column, we review the conclusions of A. Malinovska, L. Pitasch, N. Geigy, C. H. Nickel, and R. Bingisser (2019) from their article, titled "Modification of the Emergency Severity Index Improves Mortality Prediction in Older Patients."

Racial Bias Among Emergency Providers: Strategies to Mitigate Its Adverse Effects

The Research to Practice column presents an analysis of current and controversial research findings with implications for practice change relevant to emergency care settings. This review critiques Johnson et al.'s (2016) investigation, titled "The Impact of Cognitive Stressors in the Emergency Department on Physician Implicit Racial Bias," that examined emergency department characteristics and stressors and their effects on physician racial bias and decision making. Their findings suggest that unconscious biases can affect clinical decisions when providers experience increased cognitive stress. The implications are significant for emergency providers as resources are especially strained during the COVID-19 pandemic and as the adverse effects of unconscious bias on health disparities and patient outcomes have become clearly apparent. Implicit bias training (IBT) is recommended for emergency providers and has significant implications for medical and nurse educators in executing and evaluating IBT outcomes.

The student is key: A realist review of educational interventions to develop analytical and non-analytical clinical reasoning ability

OBJECTIVES

Clinical reasoning refers to the cognitive processes used by individuals as they formulate a diagnosis or treatment plan. Clinical reasoning is dependent on formal and experiential knowledge. Developing the ability to acquire and recall knowledge effectively for both analytical and non-analytical cognitive processing has patient safety implications. This realist review examines the way educational interventions develop analytical and non-analytical reasoning ability in undergraduate education. A realist review is theory-driven, seeking not only to identify if an intervention works, but also understand the reasons why, for whom, and in what circumstances. The aim of this study is to develop understanding about the way educational interventions develop effective analytical and non-analytical clinical reasoning ability, when they do, for whom and in what circumstances.

METHODS

Literature from a scoping search, combined with expert opinion and researcher experience was synthesised to generate an initial programme theory (IPT). Four databases were searched and articles relevant to the developing theory were selected as appropriate. Factors affecting educational outcomes at the individual student, teacher and wider organisational levels were investigated in order to further refine the IPT.

RESULTS

A total of 28 papers contributed to the overall programme theory. The review predominantly identified evidence of mechanisms for interventions at the individual student level. Key student level factors influencing the effectiveness of interventions included an individual's self-confidence, self-efficacy and pre-existing level of knowledge. These contexts influenced a variety of educational interventions, impacting both positively and negatively on educational outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of analytical and non-analytical clinical reasoning ability requires activities that enhance knowledge acquisition and recall alongside the accumulation of clinical experience and opportunities to practise reasoning in real or simulated clinical environments. However, factors such as pre-existing knowledge and self-confidence influence their effectiveness, especially amongst individuals with 'low knowledge.' Promoting non-analytical reasoning once novices acquire more clinical knowledge is important for the development of clinical reasoning in undergraduate education.