Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making in prehospital critical care; a scoping review

Author:

Awanzo Adam,Thompson Julian

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Every day, critical care providers in the prehospital setting respond to time sensitive and outcome-critical emergencies, often in unfamiliar environments with little or no prior knowledge about the patient. In these demanding situations, they must make multifactorial clinical decisions that may be critical for the patient’s life and future health. Errors in this complex decision-making have identified as a significant cause of patient harm and, consequently, there is increasing research focus upon clinical decision-making and risk mitigation in prehospital critical care. Cognitive biases have been identified as a common cause of these systematic errors in the hospital environment and these studies inspired the aim of this article to map current evidence and investigate, “What cognitive biases affects clinical decision-making in prehospital critical care”. Materials and methods A scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute`s framework, by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for articles, no restrictions were set for type of article. Articles describing cognitive biases and clinical decision-making in pre-, and in-hospital critical care were included. Additionally, a search in Google scholar was conducted using keywords identified in included articles. Results Five hundred unique articles were identified through the search, of which 16 articles examining cognitive biases and clinical decision making in critical care were included, with only two articles focussed exclusively on prehospital critical care. Twenty-eight unique cognitive biases were identified in these articles. The most identified cognitive biases were, anchoring bias, framing effect, availability bias, confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, premature closure, and omission bias. Twelve articles described contributing factors for cognitive biases and these were categorized into 3 main categories. The main categories identified were lack of unbiased feedback, social behaviour and beliefs, and time pressure. Eleven articles proposed mitigation factors, which were categorized into 3 categories, consisting of feedback and follow-up, organizational culture, and education and training. Conclusions This scoping review has identified several cognitive biases that affect clinical decision-making, as well as research gaps in both pre- and in-hospital critical care. Identified evidence suggest that both clinicians and organisations are affected by cognitive biases in clinical decision-making in critical care. Future research should aim to establish how these cognitive biases affect clinical decisions in prehospital critical care, and what measures may mitigate the consequent errors, may reduce patient harm, and improve outcomes.

Funder

Nord University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.7亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2025 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3