4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Do physicians know when their diagnoses are correct? Implications for decision support and error reduction

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 334-339

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.30145.x

关键词

diagnostic reasoning; clinical decision support; medical errors; clinical judgment; confidence

资金

  1. NLM NIH HHS [R01-LM-05630] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the alignment between physicians' confidence in their diagnoses and the correctness of these diagnoses, as a function of clinical experience, and whether subjects were prone to over-or underconfidence. DESIGN: Prospective, counterbalanced experimental design. SETTING: Laboratory study conducted under controlled conditions at three academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two senior medical students, 72 senior medical residents, and 72 faculty internists. INTERVENTION., We created highly detailed, 2-to 4-page synopses of 36 diagnostically challenging medical cases, each with a definitive correct diagnosis. Subjects generated a differential diagnosis for each of 9 assigned cases, and indicated their level of confidence in each diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A differential was considered correct if the clinically true diagnosis was listed in that subject's hypothesis list. To assess confidence, subjects rated the likelihood that they would, at the time they generated the differential, seek assistance in reaching a diagnosis. Subjects' confidence and correctness were mildly aligned (kappa=.314 for all subjects. .285 for faculty, .227 for residents, and .349 for students). Residents were overconfident in 41% of cases where their confidence and correctness were not aligned. whereas faculty were overconfident in 36% of such cases and students in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Even experienced clinicians may be unaware of the correctness of their diagnoses at the time they make them. Medical decision support systems, and other interventions designed to reduce medical errors, cannot rely exclusively on clinicians' perceptions of their needs for such support.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据