Logo Medical Science Monitor

Call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon - Fri 10:00 am - 02:00 pm EST

Contact Us

Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor

01 December 2005

Using risk and errors to make less errors in clinical decision-making.

Monica Ortendahl

Med Sci Monit 2005; 11(12): LE25-25 :: ID: 438955

Abstract

Dear Editor,
I read with interest the study by Vanagas and Kinduris [1]on assessing the validity of cardiac surgery risk stratification systems for CABG patients, using patient-relatedfactors to predict mortality and postoperative morbidity. Their findings deserve consideration, as manyjudgments and decisions are made in clinical work, where the assessment of risk is necessary. There isrisk involved in the choice of tests to be used to reach a diagnosis. There is also an uncertainty andrisk in how to interpret results from tests used. Taken this uncertainty into consideration how shouldinformation from clinical and biomedical knowledge be combined to reach a diagnosis [2]? With a diagnosisobtained with some certainty or uncertainty what treatment should be chosen? In all these proceduresthere is risk involved. An issue is how clinical inferences generally are arrived at when making judgmentsand decisions. Theories have been provided about how doctors could include relevant information to improvedecision-making [3]. However, a reasoning error could be made in clinical inference, as it is characterizedby backward reasoning, where diagnosticians attempt to link observed effects to prior causes [4]. Incontrast to this post hoc explanation, statistical prediction entails forward reasoning, because it isconcerned with forecasting future outcomes given observed information. Clinical inference utilizes informationfrom prior periods to make a statement about today, and tends to consider error as a nuisance variable.The statistical approach, on the other hand, accepts error as inevitable, and in so doing probably makesfewer errors in prediction for periods extending over a relatively long time [5]. Moreover, the statisticalapproach is based upon group data to arrive at a conclusion. The situation is different in clinical inferenceand decision-making, where group data concerning risk constitute the basis for diagnostic and treatmentchoices concerning the individual patient. It has also been found that doctors exhibit an interindividual,as well as an intraindividual variation in judgments [6]. One example in practical work is the outcomeof clinical examinations that could vary between doctors. Another example is the interpretations of radiologicalpictures that could exhibit a variation between doctors. Many people tend to overestimate how much theyknow, even about the easiest knowledge tasks [7]. Overconfidence (i.e., greater certainty than circumstanceswarrant) leads to overestimation of the importance of occurrences that confirm their hypothesis. It impedeslearning from environmental feedback, and hence results in deleterious effects on future predictions.In many decision settings, inexperienced practitioners and even naive laboratory subjects perform aswell (or as poorly) as performers with more experience [8]. The performance of the patient could be asgood or bad as these subjects. The daily work with patients implies considering risks at many stagesof the decision process. How to convey this information about risk and error to the patients, being anunavoidable condition in clinical work, in order to reach a mutual agreement on treatment judgments anddecisions? By being aware of errors that can be made some of the errors can be counteracted. Therefore,it is a challenge in clinical practice to include different features of risk, and engage providers andpatients in present and future health.
Sincerelly,
Monica Ortendahl MD, PhD, Malma Backe 3 H, 756 47Uppsala, Sweden, e-mail: [email protected]
References:
1.Vanagas G, Kinduris S: Assessing thevalidity of cardiac surgery risk stratification systems for CABG patients in a single center. Med SciMonit, 2005;11: CR215-CR218
2.Gonzales-Clemente JM, Galdon G, Mitjavila J et al: Translation of the recommendationsfor the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus into daily clinical practice in a primary health care setting.Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2003; 62: 123-29
3.Patel VL, Arocha JF, Chaudhari S et al: Knowledge integrationand reasoning as a function of instruction in a hybrid medical curriculum. J Dent Educ, 2005; 69: 1186-211
4.De Vries, TPGM, Henning RH, Hogerzeil HV et al: Impact of short course in pharmacotherapy for undergraduatemedical students: an international randomised controlled study. Lancet, 1995; 346: 1454-57
5.KempainenRR, Migeon MB, Wolf FM: Understanding our mistakes: a primer on errors in clinical reasoning. Med Teach,2003; 25: 177-81
6.Groves M, O'Rourke P, Alexander H: Clinical reasoning: the relative contribution ofidentification, interpretation and hypothesis errors to misdiagnosis. Med Teach, 2003; 25: 621-25 7.KlaymanJ, Soll JB, Gonzales-Vallejo C et al: Overconfidence: it depends on how, what and whom you ask. Org BehavHum Decis Process, 1999; 79: 216-47 8.Lewis DK, Robinson J, Wilkinson E: Factors involved in decidingto start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians' and lay people's attitudes. Br Med J,2003; 327: 841 Received: 2005.11.16.

Keywords: Coronary Artery Bypass - mortality, Diagnostic Errors, Medical Errors - mortality, Prognosis, Risk Factors

0 Comments

Editorial

04 June 2022 : Editorial  

Editorial: Acute Hepatitis of Unknown Origin in Children. Is Autoimmunity at Play?

Nahum Mendez-Sanchez, Shreya C. Pal
Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937371

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937371

SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

27 June 2022 : Clinical Research  

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) in 16 Patients Following COVID-19 Vaccination Who...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937430  

27 May 2022 : Clinical Research  

Factors Associated with Falls During Hospitalization for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e936547

In Press

28 Jun 2022 : Meta-Analysis  

Urodynamics in Early Diagnosis of Diabetic Bladder Dysfunction in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937166  

28 Jun 2022 : Clinical Research  

Serum Calprotectin – a NET Product – as a Biomarker of Disease Activity in Patients with Systemic Lupus Ery...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.936534  

28 Jun 2022 : Database Analysis  

LINC00963 May Be Associated with a Poor Prognosis in Patients with Cervical Cancer

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.935070  

27 Jun 2022 : Clinical Research  

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) in 16 Patients Following COVID-19 Vaccination Who...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937430  

Most Viewed Current Articles

30 Dec 2021 : Clinical Research  

Retrospective Study of Outcomes and Hospitalization Rates of Patients in Italy with a Confirmed Diagnosis o...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.935379

Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e935379

08 Mar 2022 : Review article  

A Review of the Potential Roles of Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Pharmacological Approaches for the Man...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.936292

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e936292

01 Nov 2020 : Review article  

Long-Term Respiratory and Neurological Sequelae of COVID-19

DOI :10.12659/MSM.928996

Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e928996

01 Jan 2022 : Editorial  

Editorial: Current Status of Oral Antiviral Drug Treatments for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Non-Hospitalized Pa...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.935952

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e935952

Your Privacy

We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website, You can decise for yourself which categories you you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available. View our privacy policy.

Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750
Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750