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 …

A randomized experimental study to assess the effect of language on medical students’ anxiety due to uncertainty

Arabella L. Simpkin
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
  • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  • Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Phone: +1-347-556-3358
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Zachary Murphy / Katrina A. Armstrong
Published Online: 2019-02-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0050

Abstract

Background

Communication and handoff failures are common causes of diagnostic errors in hospital. Human quest for certainty can increase the likelihood of premature closure in decision-making, the most common phenomenon in misdiagnosis. Little research exists on whether language choice in handoffs affects physicians’ sense of uncertainty.

Methods

Medical students from a large US medical school were randomized to receive one of four language variations describing a presumed diagnosis in hypothetical handoffs from emergency department (ED) to inpatient ward. The control language arm used the word ‘diagnosis’; experimental arms replaced this word with either ‘hypothesis’, ‘probability of 60%’, or ‘working diagnosis’ with a short differential. Outcome measures were students’ anxiety due to uncertainty (range 5–30; higher scores indicating higher stress from uncertainty) and clinical uncertainty about the ED provider’s presumed diagnosis.

Results

Mean anxiety due to uncertainty was significantly higher in subjects receiving the ‘hypothesis’ language arm compared to those receiving the control ‘diagnosis’ language [19.2 (4.6) vs. 15.5 (3.4); p<0.008]. Differences between subjects who received the probability language [17.2 (5.8) vs. 15.5 (3.4); p=0.26] and ‘working diagnosis’ language [16 (5) vs. 15.5 (3.4); p=0.69] were not statistically significant. There was no difference in items assessing clinical uncertainty after each scenario.

Conclusions

The word ‘hypothesis’ increased anxiety due to uncertainty compared to the word ‘diagnosis’, but did not change assessments of clinical uncertainty. Further research is needed to assess how use of language in clinical handoffs may influence perceptions and anxiety related to uncertainty and whether optimal language can be identified that leads to recognition of uncertainty without maladaptive stress or anxiety due to uncertainty.

Keywords: communication; clinical reasoning; decision-making; medical education; premature closure

References

  • 1.

    Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Cooper J, Demonaco HJ, GallivanT, et al. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group. J Am Med Assoc 1995;274:35–43.Google 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.Google Scholar

  • 3.

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

  • 4.

    Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med 2008;121:S2–23.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Burroughs TE, Waterman AD, Gallagher TH, Waterman B, Adams D, Jeffe DB, et al. Patient concerns about medical errors in emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:57–64.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Croskerry P, Sinclair D. Emergency medicine: a practice prone to error? CJEM 2001;3:271–6.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Lambe KA, O’Reilly G, Kelly BD, Curristan S. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:808–20.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Tversky AK. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453–8.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Simpkin AL, Schwartzstein RM. Tolerating uncertainty – the next medical revolution? N Engl J Med 2016;375:1713–5.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Politi MC, Han PK, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 2007;27:681–95.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometica 1979;6:621–30.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    Kahneman D, Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American 1982;246:160–73.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Pelletier LG. Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviors: how message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivations. Can Pscyhoo 2008;49:210–7.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Eva KW, Wood TJ, Riddle J, Touchie C, Bordage G. How clinical features are presented matters to weaker diagnosticians. Med Educ 2010;44:775–85.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Croskerry P, Abbass AA, Wu AW. How doctors feel: affective issues in patients’ safety. Lancet 2008;372:1205–6.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Gerrity MS, DeVellis RF, Earp JA. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty in patient care. A new measure and new insights. Med Care 1990;28:724–36.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Gerrity MS WK, DeVellis RF, Dittus RS. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty: refining the constructs and scales. Motiv Emot 1995;19:175–91.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Coutts L, Rogers J. Predictors of student self-assessment accuracy during a clinical performance exam: comparisons between over-estimators and under-estimators of SP-evaluated performance. Acad Med 1999;74:S128–30.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Simpkin AL, Khan A, West DC, Garcia BM, Sectish TC, Spector ND, et al. Stress from uncertainty and resilience among depressed and burned out residents: a cross-sectional study. Acad Pediatr 2018;18:698–704.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Hillen MA, Gutheil CM, Strout TD, Smets EM, Han PK. Tolerance of uncertainty: conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare. Soc Sci Med 2017;180:62–75.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    The Pediatrics Milestone Project. A Joint Initiative of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Pediatrics. 2017 [cited 2017. Available from: https://acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/PediatricsMilestones.pdf.

  • 22.

    General Medical Council: Outcomes for Graduates 2018 [Available from: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/dc11326-outcomes-for-graduates-2018_pdf-75040796.pdf.

  • 23.

    Ahmed H, Naik G, Willoughby H, Edwards AG. Communicating risk. Br Med J 2012;344:e3996.Google Scholar

  • 24.

    Evans L, Trotter DR. Epistemology and uncertainty in primary care: an exploratory study. Fam Med 2009;41:319–26.Google Scholar

  • 25.

    Logan RL, Scott PJ. Uncertainty in clinical practice: implications for quality and costs of health care. Lancet 1996;347:595–8.Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Jensen PM, Trollope-Kumar K, Waters H, Everson J. Building physician resilience. Can Fam Physician 2008;54:722–9.Google Scholar

  • 27.

    Zwack J, Schweitzer J. If every fifth physician is affected by burnout, what about the other four? Resilience strategies of experienced physicians. Acad Med 2013;88:382–9.Google Scholar

  • 28.

    Mathot KJ, Wright J, Kempenaers B, Dingemanse NJ. Adaptive strategies for managing uncertainty may explain personality-related differences in behavioural plasticity. Oikos 2012;121:1009–20.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-07-12

Accepted: 2019-01-08

Published Online: 2019-02-12


Author contributions: Arabella L. Simpkin and Katrina A. Armstrong conceptualized and designed the study, and designed the data collection instruments. Arabella L. Simpkin and Zachary Murphy coordinated and supervised collection of data from participants. All authors carried out data analysis, and were responsible for drafting the manuscript, critical revision for important intellectual content, and final approval of the manuscript. Arabella L. Simpkin is the guarantor for the study. Arabella L. Simpkin affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. All authors had full access to all the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

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, 20180050, ISSN (Online) 2194-802X, ISSN (Print) 2194-8011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0050.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in