scholarly journals Use of Heuristics during the clinical decision process in from family physicians in real conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Fernández Aguilar ◽  
José-Jesús Martín-Martín ◽  
Sergio Minué-Lorenzo ◽  
Alberto Fernández Ajuria
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Statistical Correlation ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Definition Of

Rationale, aims and objectives: The available evidence on the existence and consequences of the use of heuristics in the clinical decision process is very scarce. The purpose of this study is to measure the use of the Representativeness, Availability and Overconfidence heuristics in real conditions with Primary Care physicians in cases of dyspnea and to study the possible correlation with diagnostic error. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in 4 Primary Care centers in which 371 new cases or dyspnea were registered. The use of the three heuristics in the diagnostic process is measured through an operational definition of the same. Subsequently, the statistical correlation with the identified clinical errors is analyzed. Results: In 9.97% of the registered cases a diagnostic error was identified. In 49.59% of the cases, the physicians used the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. The availability heuristic was used by 82.38% of the doctors and finally, in more than 50% of the cases the doctors showed excess confidence. None of the heuristics showed a statistically significant correlation with diagnostic error. Conclusion: The three heuristics have been used as mental shortcuts by Primary Care physicians in the clinical decision process in cases of dyspnea, but their influence on the diagnostic error is not significant. New studies based on the proposed methodology will allow confirming both its importance and its association with diagnostic error.

scholarly journals Use of Heuristics during the clinical decision process in Primary Care physicians in real conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Fernández Aguilar ◽  
José-Jesús Martín-Martín ◽  
Sergio Minué-Lorenzo ◽  
Miquel Farres
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Statistical Correlation ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Definition Of

Rationale, aims and objectives: The available evidence on the existence and consequences of the use of heuristics in the clinical decision process is very scarce. The purpose of this study is to measure the use of the Representativeness, Availability and Overconfidence heuristics in real conditions with Primary Care physicians in cases of dyspnea and to study the possible correlation with diagnostic error. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in 4 Primary Care centers in which 371 new cases or dyspnea were registered. The use of the three heuristics in the diagnostic process is measured through an operational definition of the same. Subsequently, the statistical correlation with the identified clinical errors is analyzed. Results: In 9.97% of the registered cases a diagnostic error was identified. In 49.59% of the cases, the physicians used the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. The availability heuristic was used by 82.38% of the doctors and finally, in more than 50% of the cases the doctors showed excess confidence. None of the heuristics showed a statistically significant correlation with diagnostic error. Conclusion: The three heuristics have been used as mental shortcuts by Primary Care physicians in the clinical decision process in cases of dyspnea, but their influence on the diagnostic error is not significant. New studies based on the proposed methodology will allow confirming both its importance and its association with diagnostic error.

scholarly journals Use of Heuristics during the clinical decision process from family physicians in real conditions.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Fernández Aguilar ◽  
José-Jesús Martín-Martín ◽  
Sergio Minué-Lorenzo ◽  
Alberto Fernández Ajuria
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Statistical Correlation ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Definition Of

Rationale, aims and objectives: The available evidence on the existence and consequences of the use of heuristics in the clinical decision process is very scarce. The purpose of this study is to measure the use of the Representativeness, Availability and Overconfidence heuristics in real conditions with Primary Care physicians in cases of dyspnea and to study the possible correlation with diagnostic error. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in 4 Primary Care centers in which 371 new cases or dyspnea were registered. The use of the three heuristics in the diagnostic process is measured through an operational definition of the same. Subsequently, the statistical correlation with the identified clinical errors is analyzed. Results: In 9.97% of the registered cases a diagnostic error was identified. In 49.59% of the cases, the physicians used the representativeness heuristic in the diagnostic decision process. The availability heuristic was used by 82.38% of the doctors and finally, in more than 50% of the cases the doctors showed excess confidence. None of the heuristics showed a statistically significant correlation with diagnostic error. Conclusion: The three heuristics have been used as mental shortcuts by Primary Care physicians in the clinical decision process in cases of dyspnea, but their influence on the diagnostic error is not significant. New studies based on the proposed methodology will allow confirming both its importance and its association with diagnostic error.

Checklists to prevent diagnostic errors: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Diagnosis ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Ely ◽  
Mark A. Graber
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Mean Error ◽  
Premature Closure

AbstractMany diagnostic errors are caused by premature closure of the diagnostic process. To help prevent premature closure, we developed checklists that prompt physicians to consider all reasonable diagnoses for symptoms that commonly present in primary care.We enrolled 14 primary care physicians and 100 patients in a randomized clinical trial. The study took place in an emergency department (5 physicians) and a same-day access clinic (9 physicians). The physicians were randomized to usual care vs. diagnostic checklist. After completing the history and physical exam, checklist physicians read aloud a differential diagnosis checklist for the chief complaint. The primary outcome was diagnostic error, which was defined as a discrepancy between the diagnosis documented at the acute visit and the diagnosis based on a 1-month follow-up phone call and record review.There were 17 diagnostic errors. The mean error rate among the seven checklist physicians was not significantly different from the rate among the seven usual-care physicians (11.2% vs. 17.8%; p=0.46). In a post-hoc subgroup analysis, emergency physicians in the checklist group had a lower mean error rate than emergency physicians in the usual-care group (19.1% vs. 45.0%; p=0.04). Checklist physicians considered more diagnoses than usual-care physicians during the patient encounters (6.5 diagnoses [SD 4.2] vs. 3.4 diagnoses [SD 2.0], p<0.001).Checklists did not improve the diagnostic error rate in this study. However further development and testing of checklists in larger studies may be warranted.

Primary Care: The Future for Pediatric Education

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 653-659
Author(s):  
Joel J. Alpert
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Pediatric Care ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Inner Cities ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Care Problems

There is a continuing crisis in primary care, characterized by inadequate numbers of appropriately trained primary care physicians and the failure to mount an effective and consistent graduate educational program for primary care. This paper reviews the history of the primary care crisis; revisits the definition of primary care; and, through identification of critical issues, presents a primary care educational agenda for the 1990s. Pediatrics is at a crossroads regarding primary care, as powerful social and economic forces are impacting on today's major pediatric care problems. Before the second World War there were more than 300 primary care physicians available for each 100 000 of our population. Today the ratio is 75 for 100 000. This is despite the fact that a shortage of 50 000 physicians 10 years ago no longer exists. The majority view is that a physician surplus of 70 000 will be present by the early 1990s.1 Whether there is a surplus is subject to interpretation and the surplus may end up as nonexistent. Moreover, the availability of primary care physicians varies with geographic location, and even a single figure for this nation provides a distorted picture. The shortage is especially serious in inner cities and in many rural areas. In addition, the use of overall numbers assumes that all primary care physicians are appropriately trained in the general disciplines. For the past century, physicians have cared for patients usually as family physicians. Today, however, the generalist has been replaced by the specialist. Is this a function of financial rewards and society's needs and values or the educational experience?

scholarly journals Diagnosis and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with acute cough: a quantitative study of decision thresholds in primary care

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (676) ◽  
pp. e765-e774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark H Ebell ◽  
Isabella Locatelli ◽  
Yolanda Mueller ◽  
Nicolas Senn ◽  
Kathryn Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Multivariate Model ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Acute Cough ◽  
Treatment Thresholds ◽  
Rule Out

BackgroundTest and treatment thresholds have not yet been described for decision-making regarding the likelihood of pneumonia in patients with acute cough.AimTo determine decision thresholds in the management of patients with acute cough.Design and settingSet among primary care physicians attending meetings in the US and Switzerland, using data from a prospective cohort of primary care patients.MethodClinical vignettes were used to study the clinical decisions of physicians regarding eight patients with cough that varied by six signs and symptoms. The probability of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was determined for each vignette based on a multivariate model. A previously published approach based on logistic regression was used to determine test and treatment thresholds.ResultsIn total, 256 physicians made 764 clinical decisions. Initial physician estimates systematically overestimated the likelihood of CAP; 75% estimating a higher probability than that predicted by the multivariate model. Given the probability of CAP from a multivariate model, 16.7% (125 of 749) changed their decision from ‘treat’ to ‘test’ or ‘test’ to ‘rule out’, whereas only 3.5% (26/749) changed their decision from ‘rule out’ to ‘test’ or ‘test’ to ‘treat’. Test and treatment thresholds were 9.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.7 to 10.5) and 43.1% (95% CI = 40.1 to 46.4) and were updated to 12.7% (95% CI = 11.7 to 13.8) and 51.3% (95% CI = 48.3 to 54.9) once the true probability of CAP was given. Test thresholds were consistent between subgroups. Treatment thresholds were higher if radiography was available, for Swiss physicians, and for non-primary care physicians.ConclusionTest and treatment thresholds for CAP in patients with acute cough were 9.5% and 43.1%, respectively. Physicians tended to overestimate the likelihood of CAP, and providing information from a clinical decision rule (CDR) changed about 1 in 6 clinical decisions.

scholarly journals Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Order Sets ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Physician Order Entry ◽  
Test Ordering

Abstract Background Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care.Methods This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open label, controlled clinical trial. Setting 280 general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. Patients Patients aged ≥18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications; cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. Interventions The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. Measurements The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume and cascade activities.Results CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16 - 0.26, p<.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37 - 10.93, p=.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease - 0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error.Conclusions A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142, registered on October 25, 2016Funding source This study was funded through the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) Trials Programme agreement KCE16011.

Interpretation of Skin Biopsies by General Pathologists: Diagnostic Discrepancy Rate Measured by Blinded Review

2003 ◽  
Vol 127 (11) ◽  
pp. 1489-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin J. Trotter ◽  
Andrea K. Bruecks
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Error Detection ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Surgical Pathology ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Discrepancy Rate ◽  
Skin Biopsies

Abstract Context.—Slide review has been advocated as a means to reduce diagnostic error in surgical pathology and is considered an important component of a total quality assurance program. Blinded review is an unbiased method of error detection, and this approach may be used to determine the diagnostic discrepancy rates in surgical pathology. Objective.—To determine the diagnostic discrepancy rate for skin biopsies reported by general pathologists. Design.—Five hundred eighty-nine biopsies from 500 consecutive cases submitted by primary care physicians and reported by general pathologists were examined by rapid-screen, blinded review by 2 dermatopathologists, and the original diagnosis was compared with the review interpretation. Results.—Agreement was observed in 551 (93.5%) of 589 biopsies. Blinded review of these skin biopsies by experienced dermatopathologists had a sensitivity of 100% (all lesions originally reported were detected during review). False-negative errors were the most common discrepancy, but false positives, threshold discrepancies, and differences in type or grade were also observed. Only 1.4% of biopsies had discrepancies that were of potential clinical importance. Conclusions.—Blinded review demonstrates that general pathologists reporting skin biopsies submitted by primary care physicians have a low diagnostic error rate. The method detects both false-negative and false-positive cases and identifies problematic areas that may be targeted in continuing education activities. Blinded review is a useful component of a dermatopathology quality improvement program.

scholarly journals Incidence of Diagnostic Error in Peripheral Vascular Disease Among Primary Care Physicians

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. e104
Author(s):  
Maged Metias ◽  
Jennifer Armstrong ◽  
Vikram Iyer ◽  
David Szalay ◽  
Theodore Rapanos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Peripheral Vascular Disease ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Peripheral Vascular

scholarly journals Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Order Sets ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Physician Order Entry ◽  
Test Ordering

Abstract Background Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care. Methods This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial. Setting Two hundred eighty general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. Patients Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications: cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. Interventions The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. Measurements The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume, and cascade activities. Results CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16–0.26, p < 0.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37–10.93, p = 0.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease–0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error. Conclusions A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142, registered on October 25, 2016

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document