CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Diagnostic error in medical education: where wrongs can make rights

Eva, Kevin W.·2009·Advances in Health Sciences Education
DOI 10.1007/s10459-009-9188-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper examines diagnostic error from an educational perspective. Rather than addressing the question of how educators in the health professions can help learners avoid error, however, the literature reviewed leads to the conclusion that educators should be working to induce error in learners, leading them to short term pain for long term gain. A variety of literatures are reviewed that suggest errors in performance are necessary pre-conditions for learning to occur such that an aversion to errors, while more comforting to the learner, is counter-productive. Similarly, research is reviewed that suggests strategies aimed at avoiding heuristic-driven diagnostic errors may successfully reduce those types of errors, but may do so at the expense of inducing errors of comprehensiveness. Taken together, the variety of studies contained suggest that diagnostic errors are often beneficial and that we as an educational community should strive to determine how to harness their pedagogical and diagnostic benefits rather than simply trying to eliminate mistakes entirely.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-009-9188-9

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Previous work in both clinical and lay domains has suggested that, when left to our own devices, we judge ourselves to have achieved proficiency when the rate at which we are learning from additional experiences declines rather than judging proficiency based on the actual level of performance achieved.

    “Previous work in both clinical and lay domains has suggested that, when left to our own devices, we judge ourselves to have achieved proficiency when the rate at which we are learning from additional experiences declines (i.e., rather than judging proficiency based on the actual level of performance achieved; Eva 2009).”

    From Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. (2012) · cites this paper as Eva 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Eva, K. W.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Eva, Kevin W.
ORCID
Eva, Kevin W.
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-08-11
Volume
14
Issue
S1
Pages
71-81
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
DOI
10.1007/s10459-009-9188-9
OpenAlex
W2021473674
Cited by
69
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diagnostic errors, medical education, learning from mistakes, clinical reasoning
MeSH terms
Decision Making, 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