ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Framing bias occurs when people make a decision based on the way the information is presented, as opposed to just on the facts themselves. How the diagnostician sees a problem may be strongly influenced by the way it is framed. Does framing bias result in clinically meaningful diagnostic error? METHODS: We created three hypothetical cases and asked consultants and registrars in Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine to provide their differential diagnoses and investigations list. Two of the presentations were written two ways to frame the case towards or away from a particular diagnosis (Presentation 2 - pulmonary embolus (PE) and Presentation 3 - interstitial lung disease (ILD)) and these were randomly assigned to the participants. Both versions were however entirely identical in terms of the objective facts. Physician impressions and diagnostic plan were compared. A third presentation was identical for all and served as a control for clinician baseline 'risk-averseness'. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the differential diagnoses generated depending on the presentation's framing. PE and ILD were considered and investigated for the majority of the time when the presentation was framed towards these diagnoses, and the minority of the time when it was not. This finding was most striking in Presentation 2, where 100%versus50% of clinicians considered PE in their diagnosis when the presentation was framed towards PE. This result remained robust when undertaking stratified analysis and logistic regression to account for differences in seniority and baseline risk-averseness- neither of the latter variables had any effect on the result. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a clinically meaningful effect of framing bias on diagnostic error. The strength of our study is focus on clinically meaningful outcomes: investigations ordered. This finding has implications for the way we conduct handovers and teach juniors to communicate clinical information.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control , Physical Examination/psychology , Physicians/psychology , Prejudice , Aged , Attitude of Health Personnel , Clinical Decision-Making , Communication , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Lung Diseases, Interstitial/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosisABSTRACT
PURPOSE: A new internal medicine call structure was implemented at two teaching hospitals at the University of Toronto, Canada, in 2009, motivated by patient safety concerns, new duty hours regulations, and dissatisfaction among attending physicians. This study aimed to determine attendings', residents', and students' experiences with the new structure and to look carefully for unintended consequences. METHOD: Between June and August 2009, the authors conducted an in-depth qualitative study using level-specific focus groups of attending physicians, residents, and medical students (n=28) with experience of both the old and new call systems. Discussions were analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: Analysis revealed six themes (physician, manager, learner, teacher, workload, and "teamness") as well as the overarching theme of accountability. Although participants perceived the new system as better for patient care, there were several trade-offs. For example, workload was more predictable and equitable but less flexible, and senior residents reported less personal continuity for patients but increased continuity of care on the team level. Teaching and learning were negatively affected. Despite the negative effects, participants perceived that overall accountability improved on many levels, and participants felt the trade-offs were worth the perceived benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Residents were flexible and altruistic, accepting trade-offs in their own experiences in favor of patient care. Education was negatively affected. This study highlights the importance of carefully studying changes to look for anticipated and unanticipated consequences.
Subject(s)
Altruism , Attitude of Health Personnel , Internship and Residency/organization & administration , Social Responsibility , Work Schedule Tolerance , Workload , Continuity of Patient Care , Focus Groups , Hospitals, University/organization & administration , Humans , Internal Medicine/education , Internal Medicine/organization & administration , Medical Staff, Hospital/organization & administration , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Ontario , Patient Care Team , Patient Safety , Personal Satisfaction , Physicians/psychology , Qualitative Research , Students, Medical/psychologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Optimizing hospital operations is a critical issue facing healthcare systems. Reducing unnecessary variation in patient flow is likely to improve efficiency and optimize capacity for hospital inpatients. The objective of this study was to determine whether changing admissions, from a "bolus" system to a "drip" system, would result in a smoothed daily discharge rate, and reduce the length of stay of patients on a General Internal Medicine clinical teaching unit over a period of 1 year. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the General Internal Medicine inpatient service at Toronto General Hospital for the 6-month periods from March to August during 2 consecutive years. Length of stay distributions and daily discharge rate variations were compared between the 2 study periods. RESULTS: There were a total of 2734 discharges, 1446 occurring in the pre-change period, and 1288 in the post-change period. There was overall smoothing of the daily discharge rates, and a reduction of 0.3 days in median length of stay in the post-change period (P = 0.0065). CONCLUSIONS: Restructuring the admission system to achieve constant daily admissions to each care team resulted in a smoothing of daily discharge rates and improved operational efficiency with shorter lengths of stay.
