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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kuhn, Josepha, van den Berg, Pieter, Mamede, Silvia, Zwaan, Laura, Bindels, Patrick, van Gog, Tamara
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