Cited by 131Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealth Sciences Research and EducationDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

How Clinical Decisions Are Made

Open access
Bate, Louise, Hutchinson, Andrew, Underhill, Jonathan, Maskrey, Neal·2012·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

There is much variation in the implementation of the best available evidence into clinical practice. These gaps between evidence and practice are often a result of multiple individual decisions. When making a decision, there is so much potentially relevant information available, it is impossible to know or process it all (so called ‘ bounded rationality ’). Usually, a limited amount of information is selected to reach a sufficiently satisfactory decision, a process known as satisficing . There are two key processes used in decision making: System 1 and System 2. System 1 involves fast, intuitive decisions; System 2 is a deliberate analytical approach, used to locate information which is not instantly recalled. Human beings unconsciously use System 1 processing whenever possible because it is quicker and requires less effort than System 2. In clinical practice, gaps between evidence and practice can occur when a clinician develops a pattern of knowledge, which is then relied on for decisions using System 1 processing, without the activation of a System 2 check against the best available evidence from high quality research. The processing of information and decision making may be influenced by a number of cognitive biases, of which the decision maker may be unaware. Interventions to encourage appropriate use of System 1 and System 2 processing have been shown to improve clinical decision making. Increased understanding of decision making processes and common sources of error should help clinical decision makers to minimize avoidable mistakes and increase the proportion of decisions that are better .

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04366.x

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • In clinical settings, clinicians often tackle tasks using System 1 thinking, particularly in time-sensitive or high-pressure situations.

    “In clinical settings, clinicians often tackle tasks using System 1 thinking, particularly in time-sensitive or high-pressure situations [91].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [5]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Type 2 diabetes: newer agents. Short clinical guideline 87. 2009. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/cg87 (last accessed 20 July 2012) [PubMed]
  2. [25]Croskerry P. Diagnostic failure: a cognitive and affective approach. In: Henriksen K, Battles J, Marks E, Lewin D, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005. pp. 240–254. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bate, L., Hutchinson, A., Underhill, J., & Maskrey, N.
Affiliations
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
Corresponding author
Bate, Louise
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09-05
Volume
74
Issue
4
Pages
614-620
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W1599764279
Cited by
131
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
clinical decision-making, knowledge-practice gap, bounded rationality, satisficing, cognitive biases, clinical reasoning, decision errors, implementation of evidence
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Psychological, Evidence-Based Medicine

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