扔下指挥棒:急诊医生的认知偏差。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-01-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0316361
Mingwei Ng, Evelyn Wong, Guek Gwee Sim, Pek Jen Heng, Gareth Terry, Foo Yang Yann
{"title":"扔下指挥棒:急诊医生的认知偏差。","authors":"Mingwei Ng, Evelyn Wong, Guek Gwee Sim, Pek Jen Heng, Gareth Terry, Foo Yang Yann","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0316361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical medicine is becoming more complex and increasingly requires a team-based approach to deliver healthcare needs. This dispersion of cognitive reasoning across individuals, teams and systems (termed \"distributed cognition\") means that our understanding of cognitive biases and errors must expand beyond traditional \"in-the-head\" individual mental models and focus on a broader \"out-in-the-world\" context instead. To our knowledge, no qualitative studies thus far have examined cognitive biases in clinical settings from a team-based sociocultural perspective. Our study therefore seeks to explore how cognitive biases and errors among emergency physicians (EPs) arise due to sociocultural influences and lapses in team cognition.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Our study team comprised four EPs of different seniorities from three different institutions and local and international academics who provided qualitative methodological guidance. We adopted a constructivist paradigm and employed a reflexive thematic analysis approach which acknowledged our researcher reflexivity. We conducted seven focus group discussions with 25 EPs who were purposively sampled for maximum variation. Our research question was: How do sociocultural factors lead to cognitive biases and medical errors among EPs?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our themes coalesce around sociocultural pressures related to team psychology. In theme one, the EP is compelled by sociocultural pressures to blindly trust colleagues. In the second, the EP is obliged by cultural norms to be \"nice\" and neatly summarise cases into illness scripts during handovers. In the last, the EP is under immense pressure to follow conventional wisdom, comply with clinical protocols and not challenge inpatient specialists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cognitive biases and errors in clinical decision-making can arise due to lapses in distributed team cognition. Although this study focuses on emergency medicine, these pitfalls in team-based cognition are relevant across the entire continuum of care and across all specialties of medicine. The hyperacute nature of emergency medicine merely exacerbates and condenses these into a compressed timeframe. Indeed, similar relays are run every day in every discipline of medicine, with the same unified goal of doing the best for our patients while not committing cognitive errors and dropping the baton.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 1","pages":"e0316361"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694980/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dropping the baton: Cognitive biases in emergency physicians.\",\"authors\":\"Mingwei Ng, Evelyn Wong, Guek Gwee Sim, Pek Jen Heng, Gareth Terry, Foo Yang Yann\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0316361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical medicine is becoming more complex and increasingly requires a team-based approach to deliver healthcare needs. This dispersion of cognitive reasoning across individuals, teams and systems (termed \\\"distributed cognition\\\") means that our understanding of cognitive biases and errors must expand beyond traditional \\\"in-the-head\\\" individual mental models and focus on a broader \\\"out-in-the-world\\\" context instead. To our knowledge, no qualitative studies thus far have examined cognitive biases in clinical settings from a team-based sociocultural perspective. Our study therefore seeks to explore how cognitive biases and errors among emergency physicians (EPs) arise due to sociocultural influences and lapses in team cognition.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Our study team comprised four EPs of different seniorities from three different institutions and local and international academics who provided qualitative methodological guidance. We adopted a constructivist paradigm and employed a reflexive thematic analysis approach which acknowledged our researcher reflexivity. We conducted seven focus group discussions with 25 EPs who were purposively sampled for maximum variation. Our research question was: How do sociocultural factors lead to cognitive biases and medical errors among EPs?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our themes coalesce around sociocultural pressures related to team psychology. In theme one, the EP is compelled by sociocultural pressures to blindly trust colleagues. In the second, the EP is obliged by cultural norms to be \\\"nice\\\" and neatly summarise cases into illness scripts during handovers. In the last, the EP is under immense pressure to follow conventional wisdom, comply with clinical protocols and not challenge inpatient specialists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cognitive biases and errors in clinical decision-making can arise due to lapses in distributed team cognition. Although this study focuses on emergency medicine, these pitfalls in team-based cognition are relevant across the entire continuum of care and across all specialties of medicine. The hyperacute nature of emergency medicine merely exacerbates and condenses these into a compressed timeframe. Indeed, similar relays are run every day in every discipline of medicine, with the same unified goal of doing the best for our patients while not committing cognitive errors and dropping the baton.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"e0316361\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694980/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316361\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316361","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介临床医学正变得越来越复杂,越来越需要以团队为基础的方法来满足医疗保健需求。这种认知推理在个人、团队和系统之间的分散性(被称为 "分布式认知")意味着我们对认知偏差和错误的理解必须超越传统的 "头脑中 "的个人心智模式,而应着眼于更广泛的 "外部世界 "背景。据我们所知,迄今为止还没有定性研究从基于团队的社会文化角度对临床环境中的认知偏差进行过研究。因此,我们的研究旨在探讨急诊医生(EPs)的认知偏差和错误是如何因社会文化影响和团队认知失误而产生的:我们的研究团队由来自三个不同机构的四名不同资历的急诊科医生以及提供定性方法指导的本地和国际学者组成。我们采用了一种建构主义范式,并采用了一种反思性专题分析方法,这种方法承认了我们研究人员的反思性。我们与 25 名 EPs 进行了 7 次焦点小组讨论,这些 EPs 都是有目的的抽样,以实现最大程度的差异化。我们的研究问题是社会文化因素如何导致急诊医生的认知偏差和医疗失误?我们的主题围绕着与团队心理有关的社会文化压力。在主题一中,急救医生迫于社会文化压力而盲目信任同事。在第二个主题中,急诊科医生迫于文化规范,必须 "和蔼可亲",并在交接班时将病例简明扼要地归纳为疾病脚本。最后一种情况是,急诊科医生承受着巨大的压力,必须遵循传统智慧,遵守临床规程,不得挑战住院专家:结论:临床决策中的认知偏差和错误可能是由于分布式团队认知的失误造成的。虽然这项研究的重点是急诊医学,但团队认知中的这些缺陷与整个医疗过程和所有医学专科都息息相关。急诊医学的超急性特点只是加剧了这些问题,并将其浓缩在一个压缩的时间框架内。事实上,类似的接力每天都在医学的各个学科中进行着,我们的目标是一致的,那就是为患者提供最好的服务,同时不犯认知错误,不丢掉接力棒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Dropping the baton: Cognitive biases in emergency physicians.

Dropping the baton: Cognitive biases in emergency physicians.

Introduction: Clinical medicine is becoming more complex and increasingly requires a team-based approach to deliver healthcare needs. This dispersion of cognitive reasoning across individuals, teams and systems (termed "distributed cognition") means that our understanding of cognitive biases and errors must expand beyond traditional "in-the-head" individual mental models and focus on a broader "out-in-the-world" context instead. To our knowledge, no qualitative studies thus far have examined cognitive biases in clinical settings from a team-based sociocultural perspective. Our study therefore seeks to explore how cognitive biases and errors among emergency physicians (EPs) arise due to sociocultural influences and lapses in team cognition.

Methodology: Our study team comprised four EPs of different seniorities from three different institutions and local and international academics who provided qualitative methodological guidance. We adopted a constructivist paradigm and employed a reflexive thematic analysis approach which acknowledged our researcher reflexivity. We conducted seven focus group discussions with 25 EPs who were purposively sampled for maximum variation. Our research question was: How do sociocultural factors lead to cognitive biases and medical errors among EPs?

Results: Our themes coalesce around sociocultural pressures related to team psychology. In theme one, the EP is compelled by sociocultural pressures to blindly trust colleagues. In the second, the EP is obliged by cultural norms to be "nice" and neatly summarise cases into illness scripts during handovers. In the last, the EP is under immense pressure to follow conventional wisdom, comply with clinical protocols and not challenge inpatient specialists.

Conclusion: Cognitive biases and errors in clinical decision-making can arise due to lapses in distributed team cognition. Although this study focuses on emergency medicine, these pitfalls in team-based cognition are relevant across the entire continuum of care and across all specialties of medicine. The hyperacute nature of emergency medicine merely exacerbates and condenses these into a compressed timeframe. Indeed, similar relays are run every day in every discipline of medicine, with the same unified goal of doing the best for our patients while not committing cognitive errors and dropping the baton.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信