Systematic biases in group decision-making: implications for patient safety
Abstract
Key decisions in modern health care systems are often made by groups of people rather than lone individuals. However, group decision-making can be imperfect and result in organizational and clinical errors which may harm patients-a fact highlighted graphically in recent (and historical) health scandals and inquiries such as the recent report by Sir Robert Francis into the serious failures in patient care and safety at Mid Staffordshire Hospitals NHS Trust in the English NHS. In this article, we draw on theories from organization studies and decision science to explore the ways in which patient safety may be undermined or threatened in health care contexts as a result of four systematic biases arising from group decision-making: 'groupthink', 'social loafing', 'group polarization' and 'escalation of commitment'. For each group bias, we describe its antecedents, illustrate how it can impair group decisions with regard to patient safety, outline a range of possible remedial organizational strategies that can be used to attenuate the potential for adverse consequences and look forward at the emerging research agenda in this important but hitherto neglected area of patient safety research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Groupthink could occur at all levels of the hierarchy in health organizations, from frontline clinical teams to senior managers and leaders of the organization.
“Groupthink could occur at all levels of the hierarchy in health organizations, from frontline clinical teams to senior managers and leaders of the organization (Mannion & Thompson, 2014).”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Mannion & Thompson, 2014
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196 · see citing works
Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140130050084914 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The need to move away from agential-AI: Empirical investigations, useful concepts and open issues
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., & Simone, C. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102696 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review
DiPierro, K., Lee, H., Pain, K. J., Durning, S. J., & Choi, J. J. (2022) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1987404 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Escape from the diffusion of responsibility: A review and guide for nurses
Christensen, S. S. (2019) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.12677 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Job, C., Adenipekun, B., Cleves, A., & Samuriwo, R. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059837 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Harper, L., Kiamanesh, O., Coderre, S., Kelly-Turner, K., Davis, M., & McLaughlin, K. (2025) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2025.2488326
- Authors
- Mannion, R., & Thompson, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- University of York (GB)
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-10-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 606-612
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2001903106
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 7.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- group decision making, patient safety, groupthink, social loafing, group polarization, escalation of commitment, cognitive biases, organizational errors, quality of care, organizational strategy
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, United Kingdom, Group Processes, Humans, Prejudice, Quality of Health Care, State Medicine, Patient Safety
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