The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Checklists to Reduce Diagnostic Errors
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Checklists are designed to guide diagnostic reasoning and act as cognitive aids that support clinicians.”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [202]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population
Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A.-H. S., Dellinger, E. P., Herbosa, T., Joseph, S., Kibatala, P. L., Lapitan, M. C. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0810119 · Cited by 5,688
An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU
Pronovost, P., Needham, D., Berenholtz, S., Sinopoli, D., Chu, H., Cosgrove, S., Sexton, B., Hyzy, R., Welsh, R., Roth, G., et al. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa061115 · Cited by 4,387
The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.
Sloman, S. A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 · Cited by 3,942
The Nature of Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients
Leape, L. L., Brennan, T. A., Laird, N. M., Lawthers, A. G., Localio, A. R., Barnes, B. A., Hebert, L. E., Newhouse, J. P., Weiler, P. C., & Hiatt, H. H. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199102073240605 · Cited by 3,766
Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K. J., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., & Haynes, R. B. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 · Cited by 2,936
The Quality in Australian Health Care Study
Wilson, R. M., Runciman, W. B., Gibberd, R. W., Harrison, B. T., Newby, L., & Hamilton, J. D. (1995) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1995.tb124691.x · Cited by 2,480
Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016755 · Cited by 2,443
User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction
Anderson, N. S., Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1988) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422802 · Cited by 1,857
The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them
Croskerry, P. (2003) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003 · Cited by 1,675
Self-citationMaking health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices.
Shojania, K. G., Duncan, B. W., McDonald, K. M., Wachter, R. M., & Markowitz, A. J. (2001) · PubMed Central · Cited by 1,612
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Gawande, 10, December, 2007, 86
- Campbell, 2003, Can J Diag, 20, 115
- Croskerry, 1996, Can J Contin Med Educ, &NA;, 63
- McDonald, 1980, JAMA, 244, 1579, 10.1001/jama.244.14.1579 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124
“, System 1) decision-making process [14, 15, 19, 20, 42, 50], but may not necessarily be referred to as cognitive forcing functions even in the healthcare domain.”
BackgroundCognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review
Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C. C., & Tobler, P. N. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1 · Cited by 1,001
Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings
Singh, H., Giardina, T. D., Meyer, A. N. D., Forjuoh, S. N., Reis, M. D., & Thomas, E. J. (2013) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777 · Cited by 559
Automated assessment of psychiatric disorders using speech: A systematic review
Low, D. M., Bentley, K. H., & Ghosh, S. (2020) · Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/lio2.354 · Cited by 545
Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review
Graber, M. L., KISSAM, S. M., Payne, V. L., Meyer, A. N. D., Sorensen, A. V., Lenfestey, N. F., Tant, E. M., Henriksen, K., LaBresh, K. A., & Singh, H. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149 · Cited by 474
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ely, J. W., Graber, M. L., & Croskerry, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ely, John W.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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
