Cited by 79Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsTeam Dynamics and PerformanceClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Systematic biases in group decision-making: implications for patient safety

Mannion, R., Thompson, C.·2014·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

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

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/mzu083

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mannion, R., & Thompson, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
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