We identified a wide range of possible approaches to reduce cognitive errors in diagnosis. Not all the suggestions have been tested, and of those that have, the evaluations typically involved trainees in artificial settings, making it difficult to extrapolate the results to actual practice. Future progress in this area will require methodological refinements in outcome evaluation and rigorously evaluating interventions already suggested, many of which are well conceptualised and widely endorsed.

Organizational silence refers to a collective-level phenomenon of saying or doing very little in response to significant problems that face an organization. The paper focuses on some of the less obvious factors contributing to organizational silence that can serve as threats to patient safety. Converging areas of research from the cognitive, social, and organizational sciences and the study of sociotechnical systems help to identify some of the underlying factors that serve to shape and sustain organizational silence. These factors have been organized under three levels of analysis: (1) individual factors, including the availability heuristic, self-serving bias, and the status quo trap; (2) social factors, including conformity, diffusion of responsibility, and microclimates of distrust; and (3) organizational factors, including unchallenged beliefs, the good provider fallacy, and neglect of the interdependencies. Finally, a new role for health care leaders and managers is envisioned. It is one that places high value on understanding system complexity and does not take comfort in organizational silence.

No abstract

Background Diagnostic errors (missed, delayed, or wrong diagnosis) have gained recent attention and are associated with significant preventable morbidity and mortality. We reviewed the recent literature to identify interventions that have been, or could be, implemented to address systems-related factors that contribute directly to diagnostic error. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search using multiple search strategies. We first identified candidate articles in English between 2000 and 2009 from a PubMed search that exclusively evaluated for articles related to diagnostic error or delay. We then sought additional papers from references in the initial dataset, searches of additional databases, and subject matter experts. Articles were included if they formally evaluated an intervention to prevent or reduce diagnostic error; however, we also included papers if interventions were suggested and not tested in order to inform the state-of-the science on the topic. We categorized interventions according to the step in the diagnostic process they targeted: patient-provider encounter, performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests, follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information, subspecialty and referral-related; and patient-specific. Results We identified 43 articles for full review, of which 6 reported tested interventions and 37 contained suggestions for possible interventions. Empirical studies, though somewhat positive, were non-experimental or quasi-experimental and included a small number of clinicians or health care sites. Outcome measures in general were underdeveloped and varied markedly between studies, depending on the setting or step in the diagnostic process involved. Conclusions Despite a number of suggested interventions in the literature, few empirical studies have tested interventions to reduce diagnostic error in the last decade. Advancing the science of diagnostic error prevention will require more robust study designs and rigorous definitions of diagnostic processes and outcomes to measure intervention effects.

No abstract