|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
1 Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
2 Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY 10032, USA
Correspondence to:
Dr K Henriksen
Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, USA; khenriks{at}ahrq.gov
The ubiquitous nature of hindsight bias is a cause for concern for those engaged in investigations and retrospective analysis of medical error. Hindsight does not equal foresight. Investigations that are anchored to outcome knowledge run the risk of not capturing the complexities and uncertainties facing sharp end personnel and why their actions made sense at the time. Important lessons go unlearned if the exercise is simply to back track someone elses decision landmarks. Outcome knowledge can also bias our thinking on the quality of the processes that led to the outcome. This paper examines the influence of outcome knowledge in relation to reconstructive memory and legal testimony, ways for reducing the impact of outcome knowledge, and an adaptive learning framework that places hindsight bias in a broader context of rapid updating of knowledge.
Keywords: medical error; hindsight bias; outcome knowledge
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
V Arora, J Johnson, D Lovinger, H J Humphrey, and D O Meltzer Communication failures in patient sign-out and suggestions for improvement: a critical incident analysis Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 401 - 407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. L. Graber, N. Franklin, and R. Gordon Diagnostic Error in Internal Medicine Arch Intern Med, July 11, 2005; 165(13): 1493 - 1499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |