Understanding diagnostic errors in medicine: a lesson from aviation
Open accessAbstract
The impact of diagnostic errors on patient safety in medicine is increasingly being recognized. Despite the current progress in patient safety research, the understanding of such errors and how to prevent them is inadequate. Preliminary research suggests that diagnostic errors have both cognitive and systems origins. Situational awareness is a model that is primarily used in aviation human factors research that can encompass both the cognitive and the systems roots of such errors. This conceptual model offers a unique perspective in the study of diagnostic errors. The applicability of this model is illustrated by the analysis of a patient whose diagnosis of spinal cord compression was substantially delayed. We suggest how the application of this framework could lead to potential areas of intervention and outline some areas of future research. It is possible that the use of such a model in medicine could help reduce errors in diagnosis and lead to significant improvements in patient care. Further research is needed, including the measurement of situational awareness and correlation with health outcomes.
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
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?
Relatively little is known about the causes and prevention of diagnostic errors.
“Despite the importance of diagnostic errors, relatively little is known about their causes and prevention.22”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 156
- Authors
- Singh, H.
- Affiliations
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, H
- ORCID
- Singh, H
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-06-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 159-164
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- PMC
- PMC2464840
- OpenAlex
- W2146592582
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Heart Association
- National Institutes of Health
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1PO1HS1154401)
- National Center for Research Resources (K12 K12RR17665, K12RR017665)
- 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
- diagnostic errors, patient safety, situational awareness, aviation human factors, cognitive errors, spinal cord compression, delayed diagnosis, error prevention
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aviation, Cognition, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnostic Errors, Health Services Research, Humans, Ergonomics, Male, Spinal Cord Compression, Systems Analysis, Safety Management, Neck Pain
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
