| Title |
“First, know thyself”: cognition and error in medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Diabetologica, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00592-015-0762-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabrizio Elia, Franco Aprà, Andrea Verhovez, Vincenzo Crupi |
| Abstract |
Although error is an integral part of the world of medicine, physicians have always been little inclined to take into account their own mistakes and the extraordinary technological progress observed in the last decades does not seem to have resulted in a significant reduction in the percentage of diagnostic errors. The failure in the reduction in diagnostic errors, notwithstanding the considerable investment in human and economic resources, has paved the way to new strategies which were made available by the development of cognitive psychology, the branch of psychology that aims at understanding the mechanisms of human reasoning. This new approach led us to realize that we are not fully rational agents able to take decisions on the basis of logical and probabilistically appropriate evaluations. In us, two different and mostly independent modes of reasoning coexist: a fast or non-analytical reasoning, which tends to be largely automatic and fast-reactive, and a slow or analytical reasoning, which permits to give rationally founded answers. One of the features of the fast mode of reasoning is the employment of standardized rules, termed "heuristics." Heuristics lead physicians to correct choices in a large percentage of cases. Unfortunately, cases exist wherein the heuristic triggered fails to fit the target problem, so that the fast mode of reasoning can lead us to unreflectively perform actions exposing us and others to variable degrees of risk. Cognitive errors arise as a result of these cases. Our review illustrates how cognitive errors can cause diagnostic problems in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 31% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 41% |
| Psychology | 12 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,280,614
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Acta Diabetologica
#508
of 892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,142
of 264,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Diabetologica
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.