CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Clinician Mindfulness and Patient Safety

Sibinga, Erica M. S., Wu, Albert W.·2010·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2010.1817
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PATIENT SAFETY HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF CONSIDERABLE interest over the last decade, with evidence showing that medical errors are responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. There has been significant progress in understanding, identifying, and addressing errors at a system level; however, the performance of individual clinicians remains a crucial and largely unaddressed element of patient safety. Individual performance is important in diagnostic errors, but these errors are difficult to measure and have received little systematic study. Diagnostic errors often stem from cognitive biases, also referred to as “cognitive dispositions to respond” (CDRs). Because CDRs are integral to human cognition, they are challenging to overcome. Croskerry has delineated more than 30 CDRs and has proposed “debiasing strategies” to prevent errors due to CDRs. Prominent among these strategies is metacognition, or an individual’s knowledge of his or her own thinking process. Notably, there is significant overlap between metacognition and mindfulness, nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment. Increased mindfulness leads to greater awareness and understanding of a person’s experiences, including thoughts, emotions, and bodily sensations. Because education can increase mindfulness, mindfulness instruction for clinicians holds promise as a debiasing strategy for reducing diagnostic and other medical errors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2010.1817

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mindfulness may improve patient care and patient safety.

    “Several theory papers and a recent review have been published discussing the potential for mindfulness and mindfulness-based interventions to improve HCP burnout and work, including findings that mindfulness may improve patient care and patient safety.22–27”

    From Being Mindful: A Long-term Investigation of an Interdisciplinary Course in Mindfulness (2019) · cites this paper as [25]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sibinga, E. M. S., & Wu, A. W.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2010-12-08
Volume
304
Issue
22
Pages
2532
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2010.1817
OpenAlex
W2003043771
Cited by
88
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
patient safety, medical errors, diagnostic errors, cognitive biases, debiasing strategies, metacognition, mindfulness training, non-judgmental awareness
MeSH terms
Attention, Clinical Competence, Cognition, Diagnostic Errors, Education, Medical, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review