Cited by 366Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Checklists to Reduce Diagnostic Errors

Open access
Ely, John W., Graber, Mark L., Croskerry, Pat·2011·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Diagnostic errors are common and can often be traced to physicians' cognitive biases and failed heuristics (mental shortcuts). A great deal is known about how these faulty thinking processes lead to error, but little is known about how to prevent them. Faulty thinking plagues other high-risk, high-reliability professions, such as airline pilots and nuclear plant operators, but these professions have reduced errors by using checklists. Recently, checklists have gained acceptance in medical settings, such as operating rooms and intensive care units. This article extends the checklist concept to diagnosis and describes three types of checklists: (1) a general checklist that prompts physicians to optimize their cognitive approach, (2) a differential diagnosis checklist to help physicians avoid the most common cause of diagnostic error--failure to consider the correct diagnosis as a possibility, and (3) a checklist of common pitfalls and cognitive forcing functions to improve evaluation of selected diseases. These checklists were developed informally and have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. The purpose of this article is to argue for the further investigation and revision of these initial attempts to apply checklists to the diagnostic process. The basic idea behind checklists is to provide an alternative to reliance on intuition and memory in clinical problem solving. This kind of solution is demanded by the complexity of diagnostic reasoning, which often involves sense-making under conditions of great uncertainty and limited time.

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 · 10.1097/acm.0b013e31820824cd

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Checklists encourage analytic thinking instead of relying solely on intuition and memory, prompting clinicians to consciously examine their diagnostic approach.

    “They encourage analytic thinking instead of relying solely on intuition and memory, prompting them to consciously examine their diagnostic approach [202,203].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [202]

    The Diagnostic Checklists section (page unavailable) says the lists prompt physicians to consider a broad differential diagnosis and help prevent missed diagnoses. That supports deliberate consideration of alternatives, but the copy does not specifically say checklists replace reliance on intuition or memory or prompt clinicians to examine their diagnostic approach. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Checklists are designed to guide diagnostic reasoning and act as cognitive aids that support clinicians.

    “Checklists are designed to guide diagnostic reasoning and act as cognitive aids that support clinicians.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ely, J. W., Graber, M. L., & Croskerry, P.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Ely, John W.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2011-03
Volume
86
Issue
3
Pages
307-313
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2321464116
Cited by
366
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 18
FWCI
21.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (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
diagnostic errors, checklists, cognitive biases, heuristics, differential diagnosis, diagnostic reasoning, clinical decision-making, error prevention, medical education
MeSH terms
Cognition, Decision Making, Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Memory, Problem Solving, Checklist

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