Discussion Board

Expand all | Collapse all

Heuristics and diagnosis

  • 1.  Heuristics and diagnosis

    Posted 5 days ago
      |   view attached
    This is the third paper (attached) on heuristics and diagnosis that I am posting on Discussion Board in the last 20 months due to my growing skepticism about the importance of heuristics as a source of diagnostic errors. The main points made in this paper are as follows:
    1. Diagnosis, which consists of hypothesis generation and verification, is essentially a scientific process.
    2. Heuristics play a key role in generating fruitful hypotheses in diagnosis as they do in all of science. Accurate diagnosis is not possible without heuristic reasoning.
    3. The experimental studies of Tversky and Kahneman, from which the notion of heuristics as a source of diagnostic errors is derived, are not about scientific reasoning as there is no hypothesis generation and verification during reasoning in these studies.
    4. These studies are about day to day, unscientific reasoning in which a probability judgment is made directly from information provided. The finding in these studies about a heuristic causing an error in a probability judgment is not applicable to diagnosis, because a heuristic is never employed to make a diagnostic (probability) judgment directly from a presentation in diagnosis.
    5. Therefore, the findings in these studies are not applicable to say heuristics are an important source of diagnostic errors.
    6. There is no clear cut evidence about heuristics being an important source of diagnostic errors in published studies.
    7. The continued belief in heuristics as a source of diagnostic errors may inhibit novice physicians from employing heuristics to generate fruitful hypotheses without which accurate diagnosis is not possible.
    Please review and comment on this paper.

    Bimal

    Bimal Jain MD
    Mass General Brigham/Salem Hospital
    Salem MA 01970.
    The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at http://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.

    Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    Heuristics and diagnosis.pdf   146 KB 1 version


  • 2.  RE: Heuristics and diagnosis

    Posted 5 days ago
    l doubt the infomation regarding heuristics  inhibits novice physicians ....overstates the issue .

    Andrea 






  • 3.  RE: Heuristics and diagnosis

    Posted 5 days ago

    Agree that novice diagnosticians will not be inhibited from relying on heuristics to generate a differential. However, I don't agree that the process of diagnosis follows the scientific method so closely as is argued. In the scientific method, a single hypothesis is generated, tested usually with repeat experimentation, and then either rejected or accepted on statistical grounds or reproducible results from identical experimental conditions – even a lone human does not present identical experimental conditions. In the diagnostic process, diagnosticians are not typically pursuing a verifying a single disease one test at a time but rather pursuing multiple avenues until enough testing provides sufficient resemblance to a leading/working diagnosis to proceed with treatment. Consider the a child presenting with sore throat. That is too broad a complaint to start with testing for just strep pharyngitis with too many other competing equally or more concerning conditions must also be explored. Through iterative questioning, hypothesis driven exam one develops a refined narrower set of possibilities where representativeness certainly will drive subsequent testing decisions. Base rate neglect, zebra retreat, and search satisfying may all lead a clinician to falsely pursue one diagnosis over others. "Ah hah! The rapid antigen detection test is + for GAS – this child has strep!" (not if they're under 3 y/o – they're only colonized but the search was satisfied and his RPA was missed). "Ah hah, the radiologist says the fully vaccinated patient who got one racemic and is now happily coloring has epiglottitis – I shall put her in a helicopter and send her to the referal peds hospital" (and risk her falling out of the sky due to base rate neglect). "This teen has trismus, pain with turning his neck, high fevers and SOB – alas it could be Lemierre syndrome but I've never seen it, it's rare compared to mono and a monospot is unreliable so I'll just treat symptomatically." (and the patient returns with MODS from septic emboli).

     

    I think Geoff Norman and Laura Zwaan and colleagues have done good work showing that heuristics are not all bad and probably very good when well calibrated with feedback. But if it were easy to study reliance on heuristics in real-world scenarios with practicing clinicians (rather than vignettes on trainees), then we'd have seen these studies start to come out – maybe we don't yet have the tech to find them in action? Some of Gary Klein's work on naturalistic decision-making seems to have a component of heuristic reliance and NDM often leads to correct conclusions without deliberate conscious hypothesis testing and verification

     

    Nonetheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We theorized about the existence of gravitational waves but not until about the last 5 years did the technology exist to measure them. For someone to have argued that since we have no direct evidence they exist they must not exist is folly.

     

    signature_1232185625

    Joe Grubenhoff, MD, MSCS (he/him/his) | Associate Professor of Pediatrics 

    Section of Emergency Medicine | University of Colorado

    Medical Director – Diagnostic Safety Program

    Children's Hospital Colorado

    13123 East 16th Avenue, Box 251  |  Anschutz Medical Campus  |  Aurora, CO 80045 | Phone: (303) 724-2581 | Fax: (720) 777-7317

    joe.grubenhoff@childrenscolorado.org

    Connect with Children's Hospital Colorado on Facebook and Twitter

    signature_829143088

    For a child's sake...

                    We are a caring community called to honor the sacred trust of our patients, families and each other through

                    humble expertise, generous service and boundless creativity.

    ...This is the moment.

     


    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of Childrens Hospital Colorado and the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and privileged information or may otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachment thereto.