Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Christensen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Pfeiffer, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Christensen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Pfeiffer, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Decision Making of Clinical Teams:

Communication Patterns and Diagnostic Error

Caryn Christensen, PhD

James R. Larson, PhD

Ann Abbott

Anthony Ardolino, MD

Timothy Franz, MA

Carol Pfeiffer, PhD

This study examined the discussion of information among mixed-status clinical teams while constructing differential diagnoses. Twenty-four ad hoc teams, each consisting of a resident, an intern, and a third-year medical student, were given two hypothetical patient cases to discuss and diagnose. Prior to discussion, team members individually viewed different versions of a videotaped interview with a "patient" (trained actor) Each videotape contained some information that was present in all three versions (shared information) and some that was present in only that version (unique information). In addition, half of the time, the cases were constructed so that the unique information that appeared in only one tape was crucial for a correct diagnosis (a "hidden profile" condition) After viewing the videotapes, team members met to discuss the case and develop a differential diagnosis. Discussions were videotaped and analyzed. Overall, shared information was mentioned more often than unique information (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, teams offered incorrect diagnoses significantly more often for hidden-profile cases than for control cases (p < 0.01). The teams' overreliance on previously shared information (inability to appropriately utilize unique information) was detrimental when a correct diagnosis demanded the inclusion of such information. Clinical discussions that require the consideration of uniquely held information may be susceptible to error. Key words: clinical teams; decision making; communication patterns; diagnostic error; information sharing. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:45-50)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 20, No. 1, 45-50 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000106


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Small Group ResearchHome page
F. Tschan, N. K. Semmer, A. Gurtner, L. Bizzari, M. Spychiger, M. Breuer, and S. U. Marsch
Explicit Reasoning, Confirmation Bias, and Illusory Transactive Memory: A Simulation Study of Group Medical Decision Making
Small Group Research, June 1, 2009; 40(3): 271 - 300.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
F Kee, T Owen, and R Leathem
Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team?
J Epidemiol Community Health, April 1, 2007; 61(4): 308 - 313.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]