Physician evaluation after medical errors: Does having a computer decision aid help or hurt in hindsight?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 48-56

  Pezzo, Mark V ^a   Pezzo, Stephanie P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical; Computer assisted diagnosis; Decision support systems; Decision support techniques; Diagnostic errors; Malpractice; Medical errors; Medical informatics; Patient satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COLLEGE STUDENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ERROR; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL STUDENT; NEGLIGENCE; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREDICTION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; VOLUNTEER;

ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ERRORS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIANS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 31144474870     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05282644     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Kohn LT, Conigan JM, Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Report of the Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
2. McDonald CJ, Weiner M, Hui SL. Deaths due to medical errors are exaggerated in Institute of Medicine Report. JAMA. 1999;284:93-5.
3. Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA. 2000;284:95-7.
4. de Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, McCann AP, Horrocks JC. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. BMJ. 1972;2:9-13.
5. Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311-6.
6. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 1998;280:1339-46.
7. Murff HJ, Gandhi TK, Karson AK, et al. Primary care physician attitudes concerning follow-up of abnormal test results and ambulatory decision support systems. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71:137-49.
8. Trivedi MH, Kern JK, Marcee A, et al. Development and implementation of computerized clinical guidelines: barriers and solutions. Methods Inf Med. 2002;41:435-42.
9. Wendt T, Knaup-Gregori P, Winter A. Decision support in medicine: a survey of problems of user acceptance. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2000;77:852-6.
10. Johnston JM, Leung GM, Tin KYK, Ho LM, Lam W, Fielding R. Evaluation of a handheld clinical decision support tool for evidence-based learning and practice in medical undergraduates. Med Educ. 2004;38:628-37.
11. Grundmeier R, Johnson K. Housestaff attitudes toward computer-based clinical decision support. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Medical Informatics Association, Washington, DC. 1999;266-70.
12. Boatsman JR, Moeckel C, Pei BK. The effects of decision consequences on auditors' reliance on decision aids in audit planning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997;71:211-47.
13. Ashton RH. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback and justification. Journal of Accounting Research. 1990;28:148-80.
14. Arkes HR, Dawes RM, Christensen C. Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1986;37:93-110.
15. Powell JL. An attempt at increasing decision rule usage in a judgment task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;48:89-99.
16. Bockenholt U, Weber EU. Use of formal methods in medical decision making: a survey and analysis. Med Decis Making. 1992;12:298-306.
17. Sieck WR, Arkes HR. The recalcitrance of overconfidence and its contribution to decision aid neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2005;18:29-53.
18. Meehl PE. Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1954.
19. Marsh FH. Medical information systems. In: Reich W, ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan; 1992.
20. Lowe DJ, Reckers PM. The use of foresight decision aids in auditor's judgments. Behavioral Research in Accounting. 2000;12:97-118.
21. Lowe DJ, Reckers PM, Whitecotton SM. The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on jurors' evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review. 2002;77:185-202.
22. Kelly HH. Attribution in Social Interaction. New York: General Learning Press; 1971.
23. Kadous K. The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review. 2000;75:327-41.
24. Messier WF. Research in and development of audit decision aid. In: Ashton RH, Ashton AH, eds. Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing. New York: Cambridge Press; 1995. p 207-28.
25. Kaplan B. Culture counts: how institutional values affect computer use. MD Comput. 2000;17:23-6.
26. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243:1668-74.