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

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDAn 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.OBJECTIVEThe goal of the current study is to examine how experience and a self-directed decision to reflect affect the accuracy of revised diagnoses.DESIGNMedical residents diagnosed 16 medical cases (pass 1). Participants were then given the opportunity to reflect on each case and revise their diagnoses (pass 2).PARTICIPANTSForty-seven medical Residents in post-graduate year (PGY) 1, 2 and 3 were recruited from Hamilton Health Care Centres.MAIN MEASURESDiagnoses 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.KEY RESULTSThe 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).CONCLUSIONSParticipants 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.