Cargando…
Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help?
When physicians do not estimate their diagnostic accuracy correctly, i.e. show inaccurate diagnostic calibration, diagnostic errors or overtesting can occur. A previous study showed that physicians’ diagnostic calibration for easy cases improved, after they received feedback on their previous diagno...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34739632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10080-9 |
_version_ | 1784672534370713600 |
---|---|
author | Kuhn, Josepha van den Berg, Pieter Mamede, Silvia Zwaan, Laura Bindels, Patrick van Gog, Tamara |
author_facet | Kuhn, Josepha van den Berg, Pieter Mamede, Silvia Zwaan, Laura Bindels, Patrick van Gog, Tamara |
author_sort | Kuhn, Josepha |
collection | PubMed |
description | When physicians do not estimate their diagnostic accuracy correctly, i.e. show inaccurate diagnostic calibration, diagnostic errors or overtesting can occur. A previous study showed that physicians’ diagnostic calibration for easy cases improved, after they received feedback on their previous diagnoses. We investigated whether diagnostic calibration would also improve from this feedback when cases were more difficult. Sixty-nine general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the feedback condition, they diagnosed a case, rated their confidence in their diagnosis, their invested mental effort, and case complexity, and then were shown the correct diagnosis (feedback). This was repeated for 12 cases. Participants in the control condition did the same without receiving feedback. We analysed calibration in terms of (1) absolute accuracy (absolute difference between diagnostic accuracy and confidence), and (2) bias (confidence minus diagnostic calibration). There was no difference between the conditions in the measurements of calibration (absolute accuracy, p = .204; bias, p = .176). Post-hoc analyses showed that on correctly diagnosed cases (on which participants are either accurate or underconfident), calibration in the feedback condition was less accurate than in the control condition, p = .013. This study shows that feedback on diagnostic performance did not improve physicians’ calibration for more difficult cases. One explanation could be that participants were confronted with their mistakes and thereafter lowered their confidence ratings even if cases were diagnosed correctly. This shows how difficult it is to improve diagnostic calibration, which is important to prevent diagnostic errors or maltreatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8938348 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89383482022-04-07 Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? Kuhn, Josepha van den Berg, Pieter Mamede, Silvia Zwaan, Laura Bindels, Patrick van Gog, Tamara Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Article When physicians do not estimate their diagnostic accuracy correctly, i.e. show inaccurate diagnostic calibration, diagnostic errors or overtesting can occur. A previous study showed that physicians’ diagnostic calibration for easy cases improved, after they received feedback on their previous diagnoses. We investigated whether diagnostic calibration would also improve from this feedback when cases were more difficult. Sixty-nine general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the feedback condition, they diagnosed a case, rated their confidence in their diagnosis, their invested mental effort, and case complexity, and then were shown the correct diagnosis (feedback). This was repeated for 12 cases. Participants in the control condition did the same without receiving feedback. We analysed calibration in terms of (1) absolute accuracy (absolute difference between diagnostic accuracy and confidence), and (2) bias (confidence minus diagnostic calibration). There was no difference between the conditions in the measurements of calibration (absolute accuracy, p = .204; bias, p = .176). Post-hoc analyses showed that on correctly diagnosed cases (on which participants are either accurate or underconfident), calibration in the feedback condition was less accurate than in the control condition, p = .013. This study shows that feedback on diagnostic performance did not improve physicians’ calibration for more difficult cases. One explanation could be that participants were confronted with their mistakes and thereafter lowered their confidence ratings even if cases were diagnosed correctly. This shows how difficult it is to improve diagnostic calibration, which is important to prevent diagnostic errors or maltreatment. Springer Netherlands 2021-11-05 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8938348/ /pubmed/34739632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10080-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Kuhn, Josepha van den Berg, Pieter Mamede, Silvia Zwaan, Laura Bindels, Patrick van Gog, Tamara Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
title | Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
title_full | Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
title_fullStr | Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
title_short | Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
title_sort | improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34739632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10080-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kuhnjosepha improvingmedicalresidentsselfassessmentoftheirdiagnosticaccuracydoesfeedbackhelp AT vandenbergpieter improvingmedicalresidentsselfassessmentoftheirdiagnosticaccuracydoesfeedbackhelp AT mamedesilvia improvingmedicalresidentsselfassessmentoftheirdiagnosticaccuracydoesfeedbackhelp AT zwaanlaura improvingmedicalresidentsselfassessmentoftheirdiagnosticaccuracydoesfeedbackhelp AT bindelspatrick improvingmedicalresidentsselfassessmentoftheirdiagnosticaccuracydoesfeedbackhelp AT vangogtamara improvingmedicalresidentsselfassessmentoftheirdiagnosticaccuracydoesfeedbackhelp |