↓ Skip to main content

Reflecting on Diagnostic Errors: Taking a Second Look is Not Enough

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Reflecting on Diagnostic Errors: Taking a Second Look is Not Enough
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3369-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra D. Monteiro, Jonathan Sherbino, Ameen Patel, Ian Mazzetti, Geoffrey R. Norman, Elizabeth Howey

Abstract

An experimenter controlled form of reflection has been shown to improve the detection and correction of diagnostic errors in some situations; however, the benefits of participant-controlled reflection have not been assessed. The goal of the current study is to examine how experience and a self-directed decision to reflect affect the accuracy of revised diagnoses. Medical residents diagnosed 16 medical cases (pass 1). Participants were then given the opportunity to reflect on each case and revise their diagnoses (pass 2). Forty-seven medical Residents in post-graduate year (PGY) 1, 2 and 3 were recruited from Hamilton Health Care Centres. Diagnoses were scored as 0 (incorrect), 1 (partially correct) and 2 (correct). Accuracies and response times in pass 1 were analyzed using an ANOVA with three factors-PGY, Decision to revise yes/no, and Case 1-16, averaged across residents. The extent to which additional reflection affected accuracy was examined by analyzing only those cases that were revised, using a repeated measures ANOVA, with pass 1 or 2 as a within subject factor, and PGY and Case or Resident as a between-subject factor. The mean score at pass 1 for each level was PGY1, 1.17 (SE 0.50); PGY2, 1.35 (SE 0.67) and PGY3, 1.27 (SE 0.94). While there was a trend for increased accuracy with level, this did not achieve significance. The number of residents at each level who revised at least one diagnosis was 12/19 PGY1 (63 %), 9/11 PGY2 (82 %) and 8/17 PGY3 (47 %). Only 8 % of diagnoses were revised resulting in a small but significant increase in scores from Pass 1 to 2, from 1.20/2 to 1.22 /2 (t = 2.15, p = 0.03). Participants did engage in self-directed reflection for incorrect diagnoses; however, this strategy provided minimal benefits compared to knowing the correct answer. Education strategies should be directed at improving formal and experiential knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 27 33%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 45%
Psychology 10 12%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,695,133
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,331
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,996
of 265,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#19
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 265,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.