Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Оттенки серого: как и почему мы ошибаемся

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Цель исследования: рассмотреть эпидемиологию и классификацию ошибок в лучевой диагностике. Материал и методы. Проведен анализ статей, посвященных выяснению возможных причин диагностических ошибок, опубликованных до 2019 г. Ретроспективный анализ результатов исследований выявил наиболее частые когнитивные искажения, влияющие на принятие клинических решений. Выработаны стратегии по борьбе с данными искажениями, позволяющие минимизировать вероятность возникновения ошибок. Обсуждение. Анализ изображений врачами - это сложная работа, основанная на совокупности психофизиологических и когнитивных процессов, которая сама по себе подвержена широкому разнообразию ошибок, включая ошибки восприятия (когда патологические изменения просто пропускаются) и когнитивные ошибки (те случаи, когда патологические изменения обнаружены визуально, но неправильно интерпретированы). Хотя часть изменений на лучевых изображениях может быть пропущена из-за технических или физических ограничений модальности (разрешение, отношение сигнал / шум, артефакты и пр.), большинство диагностических расхождений связано с неверной интерпретацией выявленных находок рентгенологами. Заключение. Когнитивные искажения могут существенно влиять на процесс принятия диагностических решений и приводить к медицинским ошибкам и негативным последствиям для пациентов. Различные стратегии когнитивного воздействия и метакогнитивные практики могут помочь минимизировать влияние искажений на принятие решений и снизить частоту диагностических ошибок. Знание своих ограничений и возможностей при интерпретации лучевого исследования, а также понимание роли рентгенолога в формировании окончательного диагноза и соответственно в дальнейшей судьбе пациента может привести к более вдумчивому анализу изображений и клинической информации и повышению качества процесса принятия диагностического решения.

Ключевые слова:
диагностические ошибки, когнитивные искажения, типы мышления, лучевая диагностика, diagnostic errors, cognitive distortions, types of thinking, radiologic diagnostics

Литература:
1.Makary M.A., Daniel M. Medical error: the third leading cause of death in the US. Br. Med. J. 2016; 353: i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139
2.Kohn L.T., Corrigan J.M., Donaldson M.S. et al. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. 312 р. https://doi.org/10.17226/9728
3.Тагер И.Л. Ошибки и трудности в рентгенодиагностике рака желудка. М.: Государственное издательство медицинской литературы, 1959. 172 с.
4.Garland L.H. Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures. Am. J. Roentgenol. Radium Ther. Nucl. Med. 1959; 82 (1): 25-38.
5.Kim Y.W., Mansfield L.T. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202 (3): 465-470. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.13.11493
6.Berlin L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007; 188 (5): 1173-1178. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.06.1270
7.Revesz G., Kundel H.L. Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology. 1977; 123 (3): 559-562. https://doi.org/10.1148/123.3.559
8.Siegle R.L., Baram E.M., Reuter S.R., Clarke E.A., Lancaster J.L., McMahan C.A. Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad. Radiol. 1998; 5 (3): 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(98)80277-8
9.Donald J.J., Barnard S.A. Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2012; 56 (2): 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9485.2012.02348.x
10.Основы менеджмента медицинской визуализации [Электронный ресурс] / Под ред. С.П. Морозова. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2020. 432 с. https://doi.org/10.33029/9704-5247-9-men-2020-1-424
11.Bruno M.A., Walker E.A., Abujudeh H.H. Understanding and Confronting Our Mistakes: The Epidemiology of Error in Radiology and Strategies for Error Reduction. RadioGraphics. 2015; 35: 1668-1676. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015150023
12.Abujudeh H.H., Boland G.W., Kaewlai R., Rabiner P., Halpern E.F., Gazelle G.S., Thrall J.H. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur. Radiol. 2010; 20 (8): 1952-1957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1763-1
13.Samei E., Krupinski E. The handbook of medical image perception and techniques. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2018. 522 р. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108163781
14.Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis. 2014; 1 (1): 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0012
15.Kundel H.L. Perception errors in chest radiography. Semin. Respir. Med. 1989; 10 (3): 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1006173
16.Quekel L.G, Kessels A.G., Goei R., van Engelshoven J.M. Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest. 1999; 115 (3): 720-724. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.115.3.720
17.Brook O.R., O’Connell A.M., Thornton E., Eisenberg R.L., Mendiratta-Lala M., Kruskal J.B. Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. RadioGraphics. 2010; 30 (5): 1401-1410. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.305105013
18.Pinto A., Brunese L. Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology. Wld J. Radiol. 2010; 2 (10): 377-383. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v2.i10.377
19.Provenzale J.M., Kranz P.G. Understanding errors in diagnostic radiology: proposal of a classification scheme and application to emergency radiology. Emerg. Radiol. 2011; 18 (5): 403-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-011-0974-3
20.Renfrew D.L., Franken E.A. Jr., Berbaum K.S., Weigelt F.H., Abu-Yousef M.M. Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology. 1992; 183 (1): 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549661
21.Busby L.P., Courtier J.L., Glastonbury C.M. Bias in Radiology: The How and Why of Misses and Misinterpretations. RadioGraphics. 2018; 38: 236-247. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170107
22.Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185 (4157): 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
23.Kahneman D. Part 1. In: Kahneman D., ed. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011. 512 р.
24.Croskerry P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad. Med. 2009; 84 (8): 1022-1028. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181ace703
25.Sheth A. Internet of things to smart IoT through semantic, cognitive, and perceptual computing. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2016; 31 (2): 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1109/mis.2016.34
26.Croskerry P. The cognitive imperative: thinking about how we think. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2000; 7 (11): 1223-1231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00467.x
27.Croskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2002; 9 (11): 1184-1204. https://doi.org/10.1197/aemj.9.11.1184
28.Flavell J.H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 1979; 34 (10): 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906
29.Croskerry P. Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decision making. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2003; 41 (1): 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2003.22
30.Lee C.S., Nagy P.G., Weaver S.J., Newman-Toker D.E. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013; 201 (3): 611-617. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.12.10375
31.Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad. Med. 2003; 78 (8): 775-780. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003
32.Gunderman R.B. Biases in radiologic reasoning. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009; 192 (3): 561-564. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.08.1220
33.Berbaum K.S., Franken E.A. Jr., Dorfman D.D., Rooholamini S.A., Kathol M.H., Barloon T.J., Behlke F.M., Sato Y., Lu C.H., el-Khoury G.Y. Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest. Radiol. 1990; 25 (2): 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199002000-00006
34.Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: perceptual errors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1996; 167 (3): 587-590. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.3.8751657
35.Waite S., Scott J., Gale B., Fuchs T., Kolla S., Reede D. Interpretive error in radiology. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017; 208 (4): 739-749. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.16963
36.White K., Berbaum K., Smith W.L. The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographs. Invest. Radiol. 1994; 29 (3): 263-265. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199403000-00002
37.Strack F., Mussweiler T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997; 73 (3): 437-446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437
38.Dumitrescu A., Ryan C.A. Addressing the taboo of medical error through IGBOs: I got burnt once! Eur. J. Pediatr. 2014; 173 (4): 503-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-013-2168-3
39.Berlin L. Comparing new radiographs with those obtained previously. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1999; 172 (1): 3-6. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.172.1.9888727
40.Loy C.T., Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004; 292 (13): 1602-1609. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1602
41.Markert D.J., Haney P.J., Allman R.M. Effect of computerized requisition of radiology examinations on the transmission of clinical information. Acad. Radiol. 1997; 4 (2): 154-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(97)80015-3
42.Gunderman R.B., Phillips M.D., Cohen M.D. Improving clinical histories on radiology requisitions. Acad. Radiol. 2001; 8 (4): 299-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80498-1
43.Troude P., Dozol A., Soyer P., Girard D., Martinez F., Montagne B., Segouin C. Improvement of radiology requisition. Diagn. Interv. Imaging. 2014; 95 (1): 69-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2013.07.002
44.McSherry D. Avoiding premature closure in sequential diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Med. 1997; 10 (3): 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0933-3657(97)00396-5
45.Graber M.L., Franklin N., Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch. Intern. Med. 2005; 165 (13): 1493-1499. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493
46.Drew T., Vo M.L.-H., Wolfe J.M. The invisible gorilla strikes again: sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychol. Sci. 2013; 24 (9): 1848-1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613479386
47.Graber M., Gordon R., Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad. Med. 2002; 77 (10): 981-992. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200210000-00009
48.Rivera-Rodriguez A.J., Karsh B.T. Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: review and reappraisal. Qual. Saf. Health. Care. 2010; 19 (4): 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.033282
49.Schemmel A., Lee M., Hanley T., Pooler B.D., Kennedy T., Field A., Wiegmann D., Yu J.J. Radiology workflow disruptors: a detailed analysis. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2016; 13 (10): 1210-1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.04.009
50.Yu J.P., Kansagra A.P., Mongan J. The radiologist’s workflow environment: evaluation of disruptors and potential implications. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2014; 11 (6): 589-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.12.026
51.Balint B.J., Steenburg S.D., Lin H., Shen C., Steele J.L., Gunderman R.B. Do telephone call interruptions have an impact on radiology resident diagnostic accuracy? Acad. Radiol. 2014; 21 (12): 1623-1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.001
52.Lee M.H., Schemmel A.J., Pooler B.D., Hanley T., Kennedy T.A., Field A.S., Wiegmann D., Yu J.J. Workflow dynamics and the imaging value chain: quantifying the effect of designating a nonimage-interpretive task workflow. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 2017; 46 (4): 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.010
53.Gunderman R.B., Nyce J.M. The tyranny of accuracy in radiologic education. Radiology. 2002; 222 (2): 297-300. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2222010586
54.Strickland N.H. Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback. Clin. Radiol. 2015; 70 (11): 1158-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.091
55.Kaewlai R., Abujudeh H. Peer review in clinical radiology practice. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2012; 199 (2): W158-W162. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.8143
56.Lee J.K. Quality: a radiology imperative - interpretation accuracy and pertinence. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2007; 4 (3): 162-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2006.09.020
57.Marcum J.A. An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2012; 18 (5): 954-961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01900.x
58.Hendricks J., Mooney D., Berry C. A practical strategy approach to use of reflective practice in critical care nursing. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 1996; 12 (2): 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0964-3397(96)81042-1
59.Pashler H., Bain P.M., Bottge B.A., Graesser A., Koedinger K., McDaniel M., Metcalfe J. Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning: IES practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498555.pdf. Updated 2007. Accessed January 9, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/e607972011-001

Shades of grey: how and why we make mistakes

Purpose: to consider the epidemiology and classification of errors in radiologic diagnostics. Materials and methods. The analysis of articles devoted to elucidating the possible causes of diagnostic errors published before 2019 is carried out. A retrospective analysis of the research results revealed the most frequent cognitive biases affecting clinical decision making. Strategies have been developed to combat these distortions, which minimize the likelihood of errors. Discussion. Image analysis by doctors is a complex work based on a combination of psychophysiological and cognitive processes, which in itself is subject to a wide variety of errors, including perception errors (when pathological changes are simply skipped) and cognitive errors (those cases when pathological changes are detected visually but incorrectly interpreted). Although some of the changes in the radiation images may be skipped due to technical or physical limitations of the modality (resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, artifacts, etc.), most diagnostic discrepancies are associated with an incorrect interpretation of the findings by radiologists. Conclusions. Cognitive distortions can significantly affect the process of making diagnostic decisions, and lead to medical errors and negative consequences for patients. Various cognitive strategies and metacognitive practices can help minimize the impact of bias on decision making and reduce the frequency of diagnostic errors. Knowing one’s limitations and possibilities in interpreting radiation research, as well as understanding the role of the radiologist in the formation of the final diagnosis and, accordingly, in the fate of the patient, can lead to a more thoughtful analysis of images and clinical information and improve the quality of the diagnostic decision-making process.

Keywords:
диагностические ошибки, когнитивные искажения, типы мышления, лучевая диагностика, diagnostic errors, cognitive distortions, types of thinking, radiologic diagnostics