English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective To determine whether hindsight bias impacts on retrospective case note review using a five point scoring system based on modern clinical governance toolkits. Design Survey. Setting Clinicians of varying grades invited to complete a short internet survey. Participants Ninety three clinicians were invited to complete an anonymous survey in which they reviewed three case vignettes for the purposes of a fictional clinical governance meeting. For each vignette, participants were randomised to an outcome in which the patient made a full recovery or alternatively died shortly after discharge. Main outcome measure. Participants submit scores from 1 to 5 to indicate the quality of care provided to patients prior to their discharge. These scores were compared to determine whether judgements about the quality of antecedent care were biased by the description of a patient death. Results In two out of three case vignettes clinicians exhibited marked hindsight bias. In a case of a patient with a swollen leg, identical antecedent care was scored as poor by participants when the patient died the next day, but good when the patient recovered (p&lt;0.00001). In a case of headache, care was scored as poor when the patient died but adequate when the patient made a full recovery (p=0.0003). A third case of chest pain did not exhibit hindsight bias. Seniority of clinician had no impact on the tendency to exhibit hindsight bias when reviewing case notes. Conclusion In some cases, clinicians are markedly more critical of identical healthcare when a patient dies compared to when a patient survives. Hindsight bias while reviewing care when a patient survives might prevent identification of learning arising from errors. Additionally, we predict hindsight bias combined with a legal duty of candour will cause families to be informed that patients died because of healthcare error when this is not a fact.

Hindsight bias critically impacts on clinicians’ assessment of care quality in retrospective case note review