Assessing the association between thinking dispositions and clinical error

Kinnear, John and Wilson, Nick (2017) Assessing the association between thinking dispositions and clinical error. Postgraduate Medical Journal. ISSN 0032-5473

[img]
Preview
Text
Accepted Version
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (176kB) | Preview
[img] Other (Acceptance)
Other
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (107kB)
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135088

Abstract

Background Dual-process theory suggests that Type 1 thinking results in a propensity to make ‘intuitive’ decisions based on limited information. Type 2 processes, on the other hand, are able to analyse these initial responses and replace them with rationalised decisions. Individuals may have a preference for different modes of rationalisation, on a continuum from careful to cursory. These ‘dispositions’ of thinking reside in type 2 processes, and may result in error when the preference is for ‘quick and casual’ decision-making. Methods We asked clinicians to answer a cognitive puzzle to which there was an obvious, but incorrect, answer, to measure their propensity for ‘quick and casual’ decision-making. The same clinicians were also asked to report the number of clinical errors they had committed in the previous two weeks. We hypothesized an association between committing error and settling for an incorrect answer, and that the cognitive puzzle would have predictive capability. Results Ninety of 153 (59%) clinicians reported that they had committed error, while 103 (67%) gave the incorrect ‘intuitive’ answer to the cognitive puzzle. There was no statistically significant difference between clinicians who committed error and answered incorrectly, and those who did not and answered correctly (χ2 (1, n=1153)=0.021, p=0.885). Conclusions The prevalence of clinical error in our study was higher than previously reported in the literature, and the propensity for accepting intuitive solutions was high. Although the cognitive puzzle was unable to predict who was more likely to commit error, the study offers insights into developing other predictive models for error.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: decision making, error
Faculty: Faculty of Medical Science
Depositing User: Ian Walker
Date Deposited: 10 Aug 2017 15:59
Last Modified: 10 Aug 2017 15:59
URI: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/702076

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item