Resisting misinformation via discrepancy detection: effects of an unaware suspicion cue

Memory ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Rona Sheaffer ◽  
Rotem Gal ◽  
Ainat Pansky
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Moskowitz ◽  
Jeff Stone ◽  
Ruud Custers

2021 ◽  
pp. 115111
Author(s):  
Saima Sadiq ◽  
Muhammad Umer ◽  
Saleem Ullah ◽  
Seyedali Mirjalili ◽  
Vaibhav Rupapara ◽  
...  

Diagnostics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Asaturova ◽  
Darya Dobrovolskaya ◽  
Alina Magnaeva ◽  
Anna Tregubova ◽  
Guldana Bayramova ◽  
...  

Recent evidence suggests that a cytology–histology correlation (CHC) with discrepancy detection can both evaluate errors and improve the sensitivity and specificity of the cytologic method. We aimed to analyze the errors in cytologic–histologic discrepancies according to the CHC protocol guideline of the American Society of Cytopathology (2017). This retrospective study included 273 patients seen at the National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology (Moscow, Russia) between January 2019 and September 2021. The patients’ mean age was 34 ± 8.1 years. The cytology–histology agreement was noted in 158 cases (57.9%). Major discrepancies were found in 21 cases (7.6%), while minor discrepancies were noted in 93 cases (34.1%). The reason for 13 (4.8%) discrepancies was a colposcopy sampling error and, in 46 (16.8%) cases, the reason was a Papanicolaou (PAP) test sampling error. The discrepancy between primary and reviewed cytology was due interpretive errors in 13 (4.8%) cases and screening errors in 42 (15.4%) cases. We demonstrated that the ASC guidelines facilitate cervical CHC. A uniform application of these guidelines would standardize cervical CHCs internationally, provide a scope for the inter-laboratory comparison of data, and enhance self-learning and peer learning.


Memory ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendon Jerome Butler ◽  
Elizabeth F. Loftus

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Karneeb ◽  
Michael W. Floyd ◽  
Philip Moore ◽  
David W. Aha

10.2196/22031 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e22031
Author(s):  
Eric Kirkendall ◽  
Hannah Huth ◽  
Benjamin Rauenbuehler ◽  
Adam Moses ◽  
Kristin Melton ◽  
...  

Background As a result of the overwhelming proportion of medication errors occurring each year, there has been an increased focus on developing medication error prevention strategies. Recent advances in electronic health record (EHR) technologies allow institutions the opportunity to identify medication administration error events in real time through computerized algorithms. MED.Safe, a software package comprising medication discrepancy detection algorithms, was developed to meet this need by performing an automated comparison of medication orders to medication administration records (MARs). In order to demonstrate generalizability in other care settings, software such as this must be tested and validated in settings distinct from the development site. Objective The purpose of this study is to determine the portability and generalizability of the MED.Safe software at a second site by assessing the performance and fit of the algorithms through comparison of discrepancy rates and other metrics across institutions. Methods The MED.Safe software package was executed on medication use data from the implementation site to generate prescribing ratios and discrepancy rates. A retrospective analysis of medication prescribing and documentation patterns was then performed on the results and compared to those from the development site to determine the algorithmic performance and fit. Variance in performance from the development site was further explored and characterized. Results Compared to the development site, the implementation site had lower audit/order ratios and higher MAR/(order + audit) ratios. The discrepancy rates on the implementation site were consistently higher than those from the development site. Three drivers for the higher discrepancy rates were alternative clinical workflow using orders with dosing ranges; a data extract, transfer, and load issue causing modified order data to overwrite original order values in the EHRs; and delayed EHR documentation of verbal orders. Opportunities for improvement were identified and applied using a software update, which decreased false-positive discrepancies and improved overall fit. Conclusions The execution of MED.Safe at a second site was feasible and effective in the detection of medication administration discrepancies. A comparison of medication ordering, administration, and discrepancy rates identified areas where MED.Safe could be improved through customization. One modification of MED.Safe through deployment of a software update improved the overall algorithmic fit at the implementation site. More flexible customizations to accommodate different clinical practice patterns could improve MED.Safe’s fit at new sites.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-95
Author(s):  
Aabir Chouichi ◽  
Jakey Blue ◽  
Claude Yugma ◽  
Francois Pasqualini

Author(s):  
Qi Li ◽  
Stephen Andrew Spooner ◽  
Megan Kaiser ◽  
Nataline Lingren ◽  
Jessica Robbins ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Ainhoa Oñatibia-Astibia ◽  
Amaia Malet-Larrea ◽  
Amaia Mendizabal ◽  
Elena Valverde ◽  
Belen Larrañaga ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document