This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Pezzo, M. V. Articles by Pezzo, S. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pezzo, M. V. Articles by Pezzo, S. P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Physician Evaluation after Medical Errors: Does Having a Computer Decision Aid Help or Hurt in Hindsight?

140 7th Ave, South, DAV 258, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; pezzo{at}stpt.usf.edu

Stephanie P. Pezzo, BA

College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

Objective. The authors examined whether physicians’ use of computerized decision aids affects patient satisfaction and/or blame for medical outcomes. Method. Experiment 1: Fiftynine undergraduates read about a doctor who made either a correct or incorrect diagnosis and either used a decision aid or did not. All rated the quality of the doctor's decision and the likelihood of recommending the doctor. Those receiving a negative outcome also rated negligence and likelihood of suing. Experiment 2: One hundred sixty-six medical students and 154 undergraduates read negative-outcome scenarios in which a doctor either agreed with the aid, heeded the aid against his own opinion, defied the aid in favor of his own opinion, or did not use a decision aid. Subjects rated doctor fault and competence and the appropriateness of using decision aids in medicine. Medical students made judgments for themselves and for a layperson. Results. Experiment 1: Using a decision aid caused a positive outcome to be rated less positively and a negative outcome to be rated less negatively. Experiment 2: Agreeing with or heeding the aid was associated with reduced fault, whereas defying the aid was associated with roughly the same fault as not using one at all. Medical students were less harsh than undergraduates but accurately predicted undergraduate's responses. Conclusion. Agreeing with or heeding a decision aid, but not defying it, may reduce liability after an error. However, using an aid may reduce favorability after a positive outcome.

Key Words: computerassisted diagnosis • decision support systems • clinical • decision support techniques • diagnostic errors • malpractice • medical errors • medical informatics • patient satisfaction

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 26, No. 1, 48-56 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05282644


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. R. Arkes, V. A. Shaffer, and M. A. Medow The Influence of a Physician's Use of a Diagnostic Decision Aid on the Malpractice Verdicts of Mock Jurors Med Decis Making, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 201 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Helfand and L. Saxton Medical Decision Making and Electronic Publishing Med Decis Making, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 98 - 100. [PDF]

				H. R. Arkes, V. A. Shaffer, and M. A. Medow Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Aid Med Decis Making, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 189 - 202. [Abstract] [PDF]