Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Diagnosis

Official Journal of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM)

Editor-in-Chief: Graber, Mark L. / Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Argy, Nicolas / Epner, Paul L. / Lippi, Giuseppe / McDonald, Kathryn / Singh, Hardeep

Editorial Board: Basso , Daniela / Crock, Carmel / Croskerry, Pat / Dhaliwal, Gurpreet / Ely, John / Giannitsis, Evangelos / Katus, Hugo A. / Laposata, Michael / Lyratzopoulos, Yoryos / Maude, Jason / Newman-Toker, David / Singhal, Geeta / Sittig, Dean F. / Sonntag, Oswald / Zwaan, Laura

Online
ISSN
2194-802X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Using computerized virtual cases to explore diagnostic error in practicing physicians

Robert L. TrowbridgeORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0460-2733 / James B. Reilly
  • Allegheny Health Network Medical Education Consortium, Vice Chair for Education, Department of Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
  • Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jerome C. Clauser / Steven J. Durning
  • Department of Medicine, Division of Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-09-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2017-0044

Abstract

Background

Diagnostic errors are a significant cause of patient harm. Cognitive processes often contribute to diagnostic errors but studying and mitigating the effects of these errors is challenging. Computerized virtual patients may provide insight into the diagnostic process without the potential for patient harm, but the feasibility and utility of using such cases in practicing physicians has not been well described.

Methods

We developed a series of computerized virtual cases depicting common presentations of disease that included contextual factors that could result in diagnostic error. Cases were piloted by practicing physicians in two phases and participant impressions of the case platform and cases were recorded, as was outcome data on physician performance.

Results

Participants noted significant challenges in using the case platform. Participants specifically struggled with becoming familiar with the platform and adjusting to the non-adaptive and constraining processes of the model. Although participants found the cases to be typical presentations of problems commonly encountered in practice, the correct diagnosis was identified in less than 33% of cases.

Conclusions

The development of virtual patient cases for use by practicing physicians requires substantial resources and platforms that account for the non-linear and adaptive nature of reasoning in experienced clinicians. Platforms that are without such characteristics may negatively affect diagnostic performance. The novelty of such platforms may also have the potential to increase cognitive load. Nonetheless, virtual cases may have the potential to be a safe and robust means of studying clinical reasoning performance.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: cognitive bias; diagnostic error; virtual cases

References

  • 1.

    Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(Suppl 2):ii21–7.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Saber Tehrani AS, Lee H, Mathews SC, Shore A, Makary MA, Pronovost PJ, et al. 25-Year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:672–80.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med 2003;78:775–80.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1493–9.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Durning SJ, Artino AR Jr., Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med 2013;88:442–8.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, Meyer AN, Sorensen A, Lenfestey N, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:535–57.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE, Rosen MA. Reducing cognitive skill decay and diagnostic error: theory-based practices for continuing education in health care. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012;32:269–78.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    McLaughlin K, Eva KW, Norman GR. Reexamining our bias against heuristics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2014;19:457–64.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Zwaan L, Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Ilgen J, Howey B, Norman G. Is bias in the eye of the beholder? A vignette study to assess recognition of cognitive biases in clinical case workups. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:104–10.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Robert L. Trowbridge, MD, Department of Medicine, Maine Medical Center, 22 Bramhall Street, Portland, ME 04102, USA, Phone: +(207) 662-4618; and Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA


Received: 2017-12-18

Accepted: 2018-07-25

Published Online: 2018-09-06

Published in Print: 2018-11-27


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: Dr. Durning and Dr. Clauser are employed by the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Diagnosis, Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 229–233, ISSN (Online) 2194-802X, ISSN (Print) 2194-8011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2017-0044.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in