CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Cognitive Biases in Diagnosis and Decision Making during Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

Open access
Webster, C.S., Taylor, S., Weller, J.M.·2021·BJA Education
DOI 10.1016/j.bjae.2021.07.004PMC PMC8520040
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjae.2021.07.004

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Such biases prevent clinicians from exploring more information and considering alternative diagnoses, leading to incomplete or insufficient assessments.

    “Such biases prevent clinicians from exploring more information and considering alternative diagnoses, leading to incomplete or insufficient assessments [94].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 63

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [1]1. [Croskerry P. From mindless to mindful practice d cognitive bias and clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 2013; 368 : 2445 e 8](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref1)
  2. [3]3. [Institute of Medicine. To err is human d building a safer Health system . Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref3)
  3. [4]4. [Deng W, Sloutsky VM. Selective attention, diffused attention, and the development of categorization. Cogn Psychol 2016; 91 : 24 e 62](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref4)
  4. [5]5. [Amodio DM. The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nat Rev 2014; 15 : 670 e 82](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref5)
  5. [6]6. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow . London: Penguin; 2012
  6. [7]7. [Stiegler MP, Neelankavil JP, Canales C et al . Cognitive errors detected in anaesthesiology: a literature review and pilot study. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108 : 229 e 35](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref7)
  7. [9]9. [Reilly JB, Ogdie AR, Von Feldt JM et al . Teaching about how doctors think: a longitudinal curriculum in cognitive bias and diagnostic error for residents. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22 : 1044 e 50](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref9)
  8. [10]10. [Ludolph R, Schulz PJ. Debiasing health-related judgements and decision making: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 2017; 38 : 3 e 13](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref10)
  9. [11]11. [Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J et al . The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med 2017; 92 : 23 e 30](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref11)
  10. [12]12. [Hirt ER, Markman KD. Multiple explanation: a consideran-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995; 69 : 1069 e 86](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref12)
  11. [13]13. Pinnock R, Ritchie D, Gallagher S et al . The efficacy of mindful practice in improving diagnosis in healthcare: a systematic review and evidence synthesis. Adv Health Sci Educ 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-10022-x · DOI
  12. [15]15. [Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA et al . Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330 : 765](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref15)
  13. [16]16. [Minehart RD, Foldy EG, Long JA et al . Challenging gender stereotypes and advancing inclusive leadership in the operating theatre. Br J Anaesth 2020; 124 : e148 e 54](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref16)
  14. [17]17. [Berwick DM. Not again! Preventing errors lies in redesign d not exhortation. BMJ 2001; 322 : 247 e 8](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref17)
  15. [18]18. [De Bie AJR, Nan S, Vermeulen LRE et al . Intelligent dynamic clinical checklists improved checklist compliance in the intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2017; 119 : 231 e 8](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref18)
  16. [19]19. [Dawson D, Reid K. Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 1997; 388 : 235](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref19)
  17. [21]21. [Webster CS, Weller JM. Data visualisation and cognitive ergonomics in anaesthesia and healthcare. Br J Anaesth 2021; 126 : 913 e 5](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref21)
  18. [22]22. [Mamede S, Splinter TAW, Van Gog T et al . Exploring the role of salient distracting clinical features in the emergence of diagnostic errors and the mechanisms through which reflection counteracts mistakes. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21 : 295 e 300](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref22)
  19. [23]23. [Schwartz WB. Medicine and the computer. The promise and problems of change. N Engl J Med 1970; 283 : 1257 e 64](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref23)
  20. [24]24. [Wachter R. The digital doctor d hope, hype, and harm at the dawn of medicine's computer age . New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref24)
  21. [25]25. [Glenn LM, Boyce JAS. At the nexus: augmented cognition, health care, and the law. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 2007; 1 : 363 e 73](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2058-5349(21)00085-8/sref25)

Authors
Webster, C. S., Taylor, S., & Weller, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Auckland City Hospital (NZ)
ORCID
Venue
BJA Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
21
Issue
11
Pages
420-425
ISSN
2058-5349 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.bjae.2021.07.004
PMC
PMC8520040
OpenAlex
W3197832903
Cited by
63
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BJA Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (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 › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cognitive biases, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, anesthesia, intensive care, diagnostic errors, time pressure, uncertainty, clinical judgment

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