scholarly journals Biasing Influence of ‘Mental Shortcuts’ on Diagnostic Decision-Making: Radiologists Can Overlook Breast Cancer in Mammograms When Prior Diagnostic Information Is Available

Diagnostics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Fallon Branch ◽  
Isabella Santana ◽  
Jay Hegdé
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Random Number ◽  
Diagnostic Information ◽  
External Information ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Heuristic Information ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

When making decisions under uncertainty, people in all walks of life, including highly trained medical professionals, tend to resort to using ‘mental shortcuts’, or heuristics. Anchoring-and-adjustment (AAA) is a well-known heuristic in which subjects reach a judgment by starting from an initial internal judgment (‘anchored position’) based on available external information (‘anchoring information’) and adjusting it until they are satisfied. We studied the effects of the AAA heuristic during diagnostic decision-making in mammography. We provided practicing radiologists (N = 27 across two studies) a random number that we told them was the estimate of a previous radiologist of the probability that a mammogram they were about to see was positive for breast cancer. We then showed them the actual mammogram. We found that the radiologists’ own estimates of cancer in the mammogram reflected the random information they were provided and ignored the actual evidence in the mammogram. However, when the heuristic information was not provided, the same radiologists detected breast cancer in the same set of mammograms highly accurately, indicating that the effect was solely attributable to the availability of heuristic information. Thus, the effects of the AAA heuristic can sometimes be so strong as to override the actual clinical evidence in diagnostic tasks.

scholarly journals Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (689) ◽  
pp. e809-e818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Chima ◽  
Jeanette C Reece ◽  
Kristi Milley ◽  
Shakira Milton ◽  
Jennifer G McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.AimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation.Design and settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.MethodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.ResultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP’s role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.ConclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

Diagnostic Decision-Making Processes

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
Julia Hodgson ◽  
Kevin Moore ◽  
Trisha Acri ◽  
Glenn Jordan Treisman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

scholarly journals Improving Team-Based Decision Making Using Data Analytics and Informatics: Protocol for a Collaborative Decision Support Design

10.2196/16047 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e16047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Roosan ◽  
Anandi V Law ◽  
Mazharul Karim ◽  
Moom Roosan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Analytics ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making ◽  
Collaborative Decision

Background According to the September 2015 Institute of Medicine report, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, each of us is likely to experience one diagnostic error in our lifetime, often with devastating consequences. Traditionally, diagnostic decision making has been the sole responsibility of an individual clinician. However, diagnosis involves an interaction among interprofessional team members with different training, skills, cultures, knowledge, and backgrounds. Moreover, diagnostic error is prevalent in the interruption-prone environment, such as the emergency department, where the loss of information may hinder a correct diagnosis. Objective The overall purpose of this protocol is to improve team-based diagnostic decision making by focusing on data analytics and informatics tools that improve collective information management. Methods To achieve this goal, we will identify the factors contributing to failures in team-based diagnostic decision making (aim 1), understand the barriers of using current health information technology tools for team collaboration (aim 2), and develop and evaluate a collaborative decision-making prototype that can improve team-based diagnostic decision making (aim 3). Results Between 2019 to 2020, we are collecting data for this study. The results are anticipated to be published between 2020 and 2021. Conclusions The results from this study can shed light on improving diagnostic decision making by incorporating diagnostics rationale from team members. We believe a positive direction to move forward in solving diagnostic errors is by incorporating all team members, and using informatics. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/16047

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document