Cited by 92Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsRadiology practices and education

Checklists Improve Experts’ Diagnostic Decisions

Open access
Sibbald, Matthew, de Bruin, Anique B H, van Merrienboer, Jeroen J G·2013·Medical Education

Abstract

Context Checklists are commonly proposed tools to reduce error. However, when applied by experts, checklists have the potential to increase cognitive load and result in ‘expertise reversal’. One potential solution is to use checklists in the verification stage, rather than in the initial interpretation stage of diagnostic decisions. This may avoid expertise reversal by preserving the experts’ initial approach. Whether checklist use during the verification stage of diagnostic decision making improves experts’ diagnostic decisions is unknown. Methods Fifteen experts interpreted 18 electrocardiograms (ECGs) in four different conditions: undirected interpretation; verification without a checklist; verification with a checklist, and interpretation combined with verification with a checklist. Outcomes included the number of errors, cognitive load, interpretation time and interpretation length. Outcomes were compared in two analyses: (i) a comparison of verification conditions with and without a checklist, and (ii) a comparison of all four conditions. Standardised scores for each outcome were used to calculate the efficiency of a checklist and to weigh its relative benefit against its relative cost in terms of cognitive load imposed, interpretation time and interpretation length. Results In both analyses, checklist use was found to reduce error (more errors were corrected in verification conditions with checklists [0.29 ± 0.77 versus 0.03 ± 0.61 errors per ECG], and fewer net errors occurred in all conditions with checklists [0.39 ± 1.14 versus 1.04 ± 1.49 errors per ECG]; p < 0.01 for both). Checklists were not associated with increased cognitive load (verifications with and without checklists: 3.7 ± 1.9 and 3.3 ± 2.0, respectively; conditions with and without checklists: 4.0 ± 1.8 versus 3.9 ± 2.0, respectively [p = not significant for both]). Checklists resulted in greater interpretation times and lengths (p < 0.01 for all). However, checklists were efficient in terms of the cognitive load invested, interpretation time and interpretation length (p < 0.01 for all). Conclusions Among ECG interpretation experts, checklist use during the verification stage of diagnostic decisions did not increase cognitive load or cause expertise reversal, but did reduce diagnostic error.

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/medu.12080

Cites

5 of 5 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 can interrupt expert-level reasoning strategies in the early stage of the diagnosis process and lead to reduced performance.

    “However, while checklists can reduce diagnostic errors, the drawback of checklists has also been found to interrupt expert-level reasoning strategies in the early stage of the diagnosis process and lead to reduced performance [208].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [208]

    The available passages are bibliographic metadata, including the title, rather than findings from the paper (labelled Abstract; no page given). Searches for early-stage interruption of expert reasoning and reduced diagnostic performance found no passage addressing that claim. The title alone does not establish whether checklists have that drawback in a particular stage of diagnosis. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Sibbald, M., de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G.
Affiliations
University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Sibbald, Matthew
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-08
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
301-308
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1836271141
Cited by
92
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
checklists, diagnostic decision-making, cognitive load, diagnostic errors, ECG interpretation, expert clinicians, interpretation time
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Diagnostic Errors, Electrocardiography, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Linear Models, 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