Difficult diagnosis in the ICU: making the right call but beware uncertainty and bias.

Dealing with an uncertain or missed diagnosis is commonplace in the intensive care unit setting. Affected patients are subject to a potential decrease in quality of care and a greater risk of a poor outcome. The diagnostic process is a complex task that starts with information gathering, followed by integration and interpretation of data, hypothesis generation and, finally, confirmation of a (hopefully correct) diagnosis. This may be particularly challenging in the patient who is critically ill where a good history may not be forthcoming and/or clinical, laboratory and imaging features are non-specific. The aim of this narrative review is to analyse and describe common causes of diagnostic error in the intensive care unit, highlighting the multiple types of cognitive bias, and to suggest a diagnostic framework. To inform this review, we performed a literature search to identify relevant articles, particularly those pertinent to unclear diagnoses in patients who are critically ill. Clinicians should be cognisant as to how they formulate diagnoses and utilise debiasing strategies. Multidisciplinary teamwork and more time spent with the patient, supported by effective and efficient use of electronic healthcare records and decision support resources, is likely to improve the quality of the diagnostic process, patient care and outcomes.

Eye-tracking to observe compliance with hand hygiene in the intensive care unit: a randomized feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections are associated with increased patient mortality. Hand hygiene is the most effective method to reduce these infections. Despite simplification of this easy intervention, compliance with hand disinfection remains low. Current assessment of hand hygiene is mainly based on observation by hygiene specialists. The aim of this study was to investigate additional benefits of eye-tracking during the analysis of hand hygiene compliance of healthcare professionals in the intensive care unit. METHODS: In a simulated, randomized crossover study conducted at the interdisciplinary intensive care unit at University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, doctors and nurses underwent eye-tracking and completed two everyday tasks (injection of 10 µg norepinephrine via a central venous line, blood removal from the central line) in two scenarios where the locations of alcoholic dispensers differed ('in-sight' and 'out-of-sight'). The primary outcomes were dwell time, revisits, first fixation duration and average fixation duration on three areas of interest (central venous line, alcohol dispenser, protective glove box) for both scenarios. Compliance with hand hygiene guidelines was analysed. FINDINGS: Forty-nine participants (35 nurses, 14 doctors) were included in this study. Eye-tracking provided additional useful information compared with conventional observations. Dwell time, revisits, first fixation duration and average fixation duration did not differ between the two scenarios for all areas of interest. Overall compliance with recommended hand hygiene measures was low in both doctors (mean 20%) and nurses (mean 42.9%). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional observations, eye-tracking offered additional helpful insights and provided an in-depth analysis of gaze patterns during the recording of hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit.