CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Annals Clinical Decision Making: Avoiding Cognitive Errors in Clinical Decision Making

Restrepo, Daniel, Armstrong, Katrina A., Metlay, Joshua P.·2020·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/m19-3692
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Special Articles2 June 2020Annals Clinical Decision Making: Avoiding Cognitive Errors in Clinical Decision MakingDaniel Restrepo, MD, Katrina A. Armstrong, MD, MS, and Joshua P. Metlay, MD, PhDDaniel Restrepo, MDMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (D.R., K.A.A., J.P.M.), Katrina A. Armstrong, MD, MSMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (D.R., K.A.A., J.P.M.), and Joshua P. Metlay, MD, PhDMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (D.R., K.A.A., J.P.M.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M19-3692 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Making a diagnosis is perhaps the most frequently performed and important procedure in an internist's wheelhouse. Indeed, a patient's therapeutic options and prognosis often center around the right diagnosis being made in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, diagnostic errors are common, with frequency estimates ranging from 10% to 40% in some studies (1, 2). Furthermore, misdiagnosis is more likely to be considered negligent and have proportionately higher morbidity and morbidity than other errors (3, 4).Cognitive psychology research over the past 40 years has led to the development of dual process theory, wherein 2 central cognitive systems, system 1 and system ...References1. Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med. 2008;121:S2-23. [PMID: 18440350] doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, et al. Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:2849-56. [PMID: 12783916] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377-84. [PMID: 1824793] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370-6. [PMID: 1987460] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Evans J. Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. Br J Psychol. 1984;75:451-68. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01915.x CrossrefGoogle Scholar6. Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78:775-80. [PMID: 12915363] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493-9. [PMID: 16009864] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, et al. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med. 2017;92:23-30. [PMID: 27782919] doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001421 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Everhart JE. Gallstones. In: Everhart JE, eds. Digestive Diseases in the United States: Epidemiology and Impact. NIH publication no. 94-1447. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1994:647-69. Google Scholar10. Werner M, Prytz H, Ohlsson B, et al. Epidemiology and the initial presentation of autoimmune hepatitis in Sweden: a nationwide study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:1232-40. [PMID: 18609163] doi:10.1080/00365520802130183 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Armstrong KA, Metlay JP. Annals clinical decision making: using a diagnostic test. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:604-9. doi:10.7326/M19-1940 LinkGoogle Scholar12. Mamede S, van Gog T, van den Berge K, et al. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA. 2010;304:1198-203. [PMID: 20841533] doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1276 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:535-57. [PMID: 22543420] doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Ely JW, Graber ML, Croskerry P. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Acad Med. 2011;86:307-13. [PMID: 21248608] doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820824cd CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2015. Google Scholar16. Green MJ, Croskerry P, Rieck R. Annals Graphic Medicine - Bed blocker. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:W142-W148. doi:10.7326/G20-0001 LinkGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (D.R., K.A.A., J.P.M.)Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M19-3692.Corresponding Author: Da

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m19-3692

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Restrepo, D., Armstrong, K. A., & Metlay, J. P.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2020-06-02
Volume
172
Issue
11
Pages
747-751
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/m19-3692
OpenAlex
W3016602686
Cited by
36
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diagnostic errors, cognitive errors, clinical decision-making, dual-process theory, System 1 and System 2, overconfidence, confirmation bias, anchoring effect, diagnostic reasoning, misdiagnosis, cognitive bias mitigation
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Cognition, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnosis, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Care Team, Probability, Bias, Medical Errors

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