The association between physician knowledge and inappropriate medications for older populations

Role of knowledge and reasoning processes as predictors of resident physicians' susceptibility to anchoring bias in diagnostic reasoning: a randomised controlled experiment

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors have been attributed to reasoning flaws caused by cognitive biases. While experiments have shown bias to cause errors, physicians of similar expertise differed in susceptibility to bias. Resisting bias is often said to depend on engaging analytical reasoning, disregarding the influence of knowledge. We examined the role of knowledge and reasoning mode, indicated by diagnosis time and confidence, as predictors of susceptibility to anchoring bias. Anchoring bias occurs when physicians stick to an incorrect diagnosis triggered by early salient distracting features (SDF) despite subsequent conflicting information.

METHODS

Sixty-eight internal medicine residents from two Dutch university hospitals participated in a two-phase experiment. Phase 1: assessment of knowledge of discriminating features (ie, clinical findings that discriminate between lookalike diseases) for six diseases. Phase 2 (1 week later): diagnosis of six cases of these diseases. Each case had two versions differing exclusively in the presence/absence of SDF. Each participant diagnosed three cases with SDF (SDF+) and three without (SDF-). Participants were randomly allocated to case versions. Based on phase 1 assessment, participants were split into higher knowledge or lower knowledge groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

frequency of diagnoses associated with SDF; time to diagnose; and confidence in diagnosis.

RESULTS

While both knowledge groups performed similarly on SDF- cases, higher knowledge physicians succumbed to anchoring bias less frequently than their lower knowledge counterparts on SDF+ cases (p=0.02). Overall, physicians spent more time (p<0.001) and had lower confidence (p=0.02) on SDF+ than SDF- cases (p<0.001). However, when diagnosing SDF+ cases, the groups did not differ in time (p=0.88) nor in confidence (p=0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians apparently adopted a more analytical reasoning approach when presented with distracting features, indicated by increased time and lower confidence, trying to combat bias. Yet, extended deliberation alone did not explain the observed performance differences between knowledge groups. Success in mitigating anchoring bias was primarily predicted by knowledge of discriminating features of diagnoses.

Geriatricians, general internists, and potentially inappropriate medications for a national sample of older adults

BACKGROUND

Older adults are often prescribed medications that are potentially dangerous and geriatricians have specialized training in treating polypharmacy that may benefit these patients. To examine this, we compared potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing rates between geriatricians and similar general internists in the United States.

METHODS

Using national cross-sectional data from 2013 to 2019, we compared annual PIM prescribing rates between 2815 outpatient geriatricians certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in 1994-2018 and general internists matched 1:1 on IM certification exam score and year, residency exam pass rate, gender, and US birth and/or US medical school. PIM prescribing was based on the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) PIM physician annual prescribing measures which consider medications flagged as potentially inappropriate in the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria® guideline. We also examined prescribing of appropriate alternative medications. Prescribing rates were calculated as the percentage a physician's patients with Medicare fee-for-service part D enrollment seen in the outpatient setting in a given year (mean: 150 patients per physician) with a PIM prescription they prescribed.

RESULTS

Across 30,677 physician-year observations, geriatricians were 16.7% less likely (95% confidence interval (CI): -19.8 to -13.7, p < 0.001) to prescribe a PIM (7.2% versus 8.7% of patients respectively) and 2.7% more likely (95% CI: 0.8 to 4.5, p = 0.004) to prescribe an appropriate alternative medication (52.0% versus 50.7% of patients respectively). Lower PIM prescribing was observed for most medication sub-types including central nervous system, anticholinergic, pain, and endocrine medications. In sensitivity analyses, differences in prescribing were similar when comparing recently trained physicians with more experienced physicians.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest geriatricians in the United States prescribe PIMs at lower rates than general internists. This highlights the value geriatricians provide as well as opportunities to embed key principles of geriatric care into internal medicine training and health care delivery systems.

Adoption of Internal Medicine Milestone Ratings and Changes in Bias Against Black, Latino, and Asian Internal Medicine Residents

BACKGROUND

The 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have affected evaluation bias against minoritized groups.

OBJECTIVE

To assess bias in internal medicine (IM) residency knowledge ratings against Black or Latino residents-who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM)-and Asian residents before versus after Milestone adoption in 2014.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and interrupted time-series comparisons.

SETTING

U.S. IM residencies.

PARTICIPANTS

59 835 IM residents completing residencies during 2008 to 2013 and 2015 to 2020.

INTERVENTION

Adoption of the Milestone ratings system.

MEASUREMENTS

Pre-Milestone (2008 to 2013) and post-Milestone (2015 to 2020) bias was estimated as differences in standardized knowledge ratings between U.S.-born and non-U.S.-born minoritized groups versus non-Latino U.S.-born White (NLW) residents, with adjustment for performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine IM certification examination and other physician characteristics. Interrupted time-series analysis measured deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends.

RESULTS

During the pre-Milestone period, ratings biases against minoritized groups were large (-0.40 SDs [95% CI, -0.48 to -0.31 SDs; P < 0.001] for URiM residents, -0.24 SDs [CI, -0.30 to -0.18 SDs; P < 0.001] for U.S.-born Asian residents, and -0.36 SDs [CI, -0.45 to -0.27 SDs; P < 0.001] for non-U.S.-born Asian residents). These estimates decreased to less than -0.15 SDs after adoption of Milestone ratings for all groups except U.S.-born Black residents, among whom substantial (though lower) bias persisted (-0.26 SDs [CI, -0.36 to -0.17 SDs; P < 0.001]). Substantial deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends coincident with adoption of Milestone ratings were also observed.

LIMITATIONS

Unobserved variables correlated with ratings bias and Milestone ratings adoption, changes in identification of race/ethnicity, and generalizability to Milestones 2.0.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge ratings bias against URiM and Asian residents was ameliorated with the adoption of the Milestone ratings system. However, substantial ratings bias against U.S.-born Black residents persisted.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Associations between initial American Board of Internal Medicine certification and maintenance of certification status of attending physicians and in-hospital mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure: a retrospective cohort study of hospitalisations in Pennsylvania, USA

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether internists' initial specialty certification and the maintenance of that certification (MOC) is associated with lower in-hospital mortality for their patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of hospitalisations in Pennsylvania, USA, from 2012 to 2017.

SETTING

All hospitals in Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

All 184 115 hospitalisations for primary diagnoses of AMI or CHF where the attending physician was a self-designated internist.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

In-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 2575 physicians, 2238 had initial certification and 820 were eligible for MOC. After controlling for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, hospital-level factors and physicians' demographic and medical school characteristics, both initial certification and MOC were associated with lower mortality. The adjusted OR for initial certification was 0.835 (95% CI 0.756 to 0.922; p<0.001). Patients cared for by physicians with initial certification had a 15.87% decrease in mortality compared with those cared for by non-certified physicians (mortality rate difference of 5.09 per 1000 patients; 95% CI 2.12 to 8.05; p<0.001). The adjusted OR for MOC was 0.804 (95% CI 0.697 to 0.926; p=0.003). Patients cared for by physicians who completed MOC had an 18.91% decrease in mortality compared with those cared for by MOC lapsed physicians (mortality rate difference of 6.22 per 1000 patients; 95% CI 2.0 to 10.4; p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial certification was associated with lower mortality for AMI or CHF. Moreover, for patients whose physicians had initial certification, an additional advantage was associated with its maintenance.