|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Physician Evaluation after Medical Errors: Does Having a Computer Decision Aid Help or Hurt in Hindsight?
Mark V. Pezzo, PhD
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
References
- Kohn LT, Conigan JM, Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Report of the Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
- McDonald CJ, Weiner M, Hui SL. Deaths due to medical errors are exaggerated in Institute of Medicine Report. JAMA. 1999;284:93–95.
- Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA. 2000;284:95–97.[Free Full Text]
- de Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, McCann AP, Horrocks JC. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. BMJ. 1972;2:9–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311–1316.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computerbased clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 1998;280:1339–1346.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Murff HJ, Gandhi TK, Karson AK, et al. Primary care physician attitudes concerning follow-up of abnormal test results and ambulatory decision support systems. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71:137–149.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Trivedi MH, Kern JK, Marcee A, et al. Development and implementation of computerized clinical guidelines: barriers and solutions. Methods Inf Med. 2002;41:435–442.[Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Wendt T, Knaup-Gregori P, Winter A. Decision support in medicine: a survey of problems of user acceptance. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2000;77:852–856.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Johnston JM, Leung GM, Tin KYK, Ho LM, Lam W, Fielding R. Evaluation of a handheld clinical decision support tool for evidencebased learning and practice in medical undergraduates. Med Educ. 2004;38:628–637.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Grundmeier R, Johnson K. Housestaff attitudes toward computer-based clinical decision support. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Medical Informatics Association, Washington, DC. 1999;266–270.
- Boatsman JR, Moeckel C, Pei BK. The effects of decision consequences on auditors’ reliance on decision aids in audit planning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997;71:211–247.[CrossRef]
- Ashton RH. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback and justification. Journal of Accounting Research. 1990;28:148–180.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Arkes HR, Dawes RM, Christensen C. Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1986;37:93–110.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Powell JL. An attempt at increasing decision rule usage in a judgment task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;48:89–99.[CrossRef]
- Bockenholt U, Weber EU. Use of formal methods in medical decision making: a survey and analysis. Med Decis Making. 1992;12:298–306.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sieck WR, Arkes HR. The recalcitrance of overconfidence and its contribution to decision aid neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2005;18:29–53.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Meehl PE. Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1954.
- Marsh FH. Medical information systems. In: Reich W, ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan; 1992.
- Lowe DJ, Reckers PM. The use of foresight decision aids in auditor's judgments. Behavioral Research in Accounting. 2000;12:97–118.
- Lowe DJ, Reckers PM, Whitecotton SM. The effects of decisionaid use and reliability on jurors’ evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review. 2002;77:185–202.
- Kelly HH. Attribution in Social Interaction. New York: General Learning Press; 1971.
- Kadous K. The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review. 2000;75:327–341.
- Messier WF. Research in and development of audit decision aid. In: Ashton RH, Ashton AH, eds. Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing. New York: Cambridge Press; 1995. p 207–228.
- Kaplan B. Culture counts: how institutional values affect computer use. MD Comput. 2000;17:23–26.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243:1668–1674.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
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]
|
|
|
|
|
