Skip to main content
Log in

Debiasing versus knowledge retrieval checklists to reduce diagnostic error in ECG interpretation

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 26 March 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate regarding the cause of diagnostic errors. One view is that errors result from unconscious application of cognitive heuristics; the alternative is that errors are a consequence of knowledge deficits. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of checklists that (a) identify and address cognitive biases or (b) promote knowledge retrieval, as a means to reduce errors in ECG interpretation. Novice postgraduate year (PGY) 1 emergency medicine and internal medicine residents (n = 40) and experienced cardiology fellows (PGY 4–6) (n = 21) were randomly allocated to three conditions: a debiasing checklist, a content (knowledge) checklist, or control (no checklist) to be used while interpreting 20 ECGs. Half of the ECGs were deliberately engineered to predispose to bias. Diagnostic performance under either checklist intervention was not significantly better than the control. As expected, more errors occurred when cases were designed to induce bias (F = 96.9, p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between the instructional condition and level of learner. Checklists attempting to help learners identify cognitive bias or mobilize domain-specific knowledge did not have an overall effect in reducing diagnostic errors in ECG interpretation, although they may help novices. Even when cognitive biases are deliberately inserted in cases, cognitive debiasing checklists did not improve participants’ performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 26 March 2019

    Due to an unfortunate turn of events, Fig. 3 was omitted from the original publication.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Betty Howey for her technical support and facilitation of the study.

Funding

This study was supported by a Medical Education Grant from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matt Sibbald.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Ethics Board September 2017, #3856.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sibbald, M., Sherbino, J., Ilgen, J.S. et al. Debiasing versus knowledge retrieval checklists to reduce diagnostic error in ECG interpretation. Adv in Health Sci Educ 24, 427–440 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09875-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09875-8

Keywords

Navigation