Startseite Balancing confidence and humility in the diagnostic process
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Balancing confidence and humility in the diagnostic process

  • Jianni Wu und Eve Lowenstein ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. Juni 2019
Diagnosis
Aus der Zeitschrift Diagnosis Band 7 Heft 1

Abstract

Humility in medicine can be difficult to achieve, yet arguably is one of the most important competencies to master. Overconfidence, on the contrary, is a natural tendency, having established its roots in evolution where quicker and more confident decisions likely conferred a selective advantage. Moreover, humility may evoke an image of weakness and vulnerability, antithetical to contemporary medicine, whose culture is dominated by overconfidence. Nevertheless, humility can be learned, and is important because overconfident behavior can be detrimental to our patients medically, psychosocially and legally, when it results in delayed or missed diagnoses. To achieve humility requires a great deal of metacognition, normalizing doubt and not being afraid to utilize tools that may feel beneath us. To practice humility requires strength and emotional resilience. In this paper we explore the definitions, roles and implications of humility in medicine, and we pose suggestions of how to accomplish this in the diagnostic process.


Corresponding author: Eve Lowenstein, MD, PhD, SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA; and Associate, South Nassau Dermatology PC, Oceanside, Long Beach, NY, USA

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Quote Fancy [Internet]. Available at: https://quotefancy.com/quote/758352/William-Cowper-Knowledge-is-proud-that-it-knows-so-much-wisdom-is-humble-that-it-knows-no. Accessed: December 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

2. Coulehan J. “A gentle and humane temper”: humility in medicine. Perspect Biol Med 2011;54:206–16.10.1353/pbm.2011.0017Suche in Google Scholar

3. Schulz K. Being wrong: adventures in the margin of error. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011:167.Suche in Google Scholar

4. Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med 2008;121(Suppl 5):S2–23.10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001Suche in Google Scholar

5. Reason J, Manstead A, Stradling S, Baxter J, Campbell K. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics 1990;33:1315–32.10.1080/00140139008925335Suche in Google Scholar

6. Mele AR. Real self-deception. Behav Brain Sci 1997;20:91–102; discussion 103–36.10.1017/S0140525X97000034Suche in Google Scholar

7. Croskerry P, Norman G. Overconfidence in clinical decision making. Am J Med 2008;121(Suppl 5):S24–9.10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.02.001Suche in Google Scholar

8. Quote Fancy [Internet]. Available at: https://quotefancy.com/quote/72827/Socrates-What-screws-us-up-the-most-in-life-is-the-picture-in-our-head-of-what-it-s. Accessed: December 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

9. Croskerry P. The feedback sanction. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:1232–8.10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00468.xSuche in Google Scholar

10. Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, Goldman L. Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 2003;289:2849–56.10.1001/jama.289.21.2849Suche in Google Scholar

11. Podbregar M, Voga G, Krivec B, Skale R, Pareznik R, Gabrscek L. Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty with autopsy? Intens Care Med 2001;27:1750–5.10.1007/s00134-001-1129-xSuche in Google Scholar

12. Ioan B, Alexa T, Alexa I. Do we still need the autopsy? Clinical diagnosis versus autopsy diagnosis. Rom J Leg Med 2012;20:307–12.10.4323/rjlm.2012.307Suche in Google Scholar

13. Graber M. Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31:106–13.10.1016/S1553-7250(05)31015-4Suche in Google Scholar

14. Kopf AW, Mintzis M, Bart RS. Diagnostic accuracy in malignant melanoma. Arch Dermatol 1975;111:1291–2.10.1001/archderm.1975.01630220055001Suche in Google Scholar

15. Dreiseitl S, Binder M. Do physicians value decision support? A look at the effect of decision support systems on physician opinion. Artif Intell Med 2005;33:25–30.10.1016/j.artmed.2004.07.007Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

16. McGinnis KS, Lessin SR, Elder DE, Guerry D, Schuchter L, Ming M, et al. Pathology review of cases presenting to a multidisciplinary pigmented lesion clinic. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:617–21.10.1001/archderm.138.5.617Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Schoenherr JR, Waechter J, Millington SJ. Subjective awareness of ultrasound expertise development: individual experience as a determinant of overconfidence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2018;23:749–65.10.1007/s10459-018-9826-1Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Potchen EJ. Measuring observer performance in chest radiology: some experiences. J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3:423–32.10.1016/j.jacr.2006.02.020Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Sanchez C, Dunning D. Research: Learning a little about something makes us overconfident. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/03/research-learning-a-little-about-something-makes-us-overconfident. Accessed: May 2019.Suche in Google Scholar

20. Croskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:1184–204.10.1197/aemj.9.11.1184Suche in Google Scholar

21. Singh H, Petersen LA, Thomas EJ. Understanding diagnostic errors in medicine: a lesson from aviation. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:159–64.10.1136/qshc.2005.016444Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

22. Gorman PN, Helfand M. Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making 1995;15:113–9.10.1177/0272989X9501500203Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Rosenbloom ST, Geissbuhler AJ, Dupont WD, Giuse DA, Talbert DA, Tierney WM, et al. Effect of CPOE user interface design on user-initiated access to educational and patient information during clinical care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:458–73.10.1197/jamia.M1627Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

24. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2635–45.10.1056/NEJMsa022615Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Berger AS. Arrogance among physicians. Acad Med 2002;77:145–7.10.1097/00001888-200202000-00010Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Coulehan J. Viewpoint: today’s professionalism: engaging the mind but not the heart. Acad Med 2005;80:892–8.10.1097/00001888-200510000-00004Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Coulehan J, Williams PC. Vanquishing virtue: the impact of medical education. Acad Med 2001;76:598–605.10.1097/00001888-200106000-00008Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Alfano M, Iurino K, Stey P, Robinson B, Christen M, Yu F, et al. Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of intellectual humility. PLoS One 2017;12:e0182950.10.1371/journal.pone.0182950Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

29. Duff P. Teaching and assessing professionalism in medicine. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:1362–6.10.1097/01.AOG.0000146287.86079.d9Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

30. Klosterman C. But What if we’re wrong? Thinking about the present as if it were the past. New York: Penguin Books, 2017.Suche in Google Scholar

31. Dunning D. Why incompetent people think they’re amazing. TED-Ed. Available at: ed.ted.com/lessons/why-incompetent-people-think-they-re-amazing-david-dunning. Accessed: October 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

32. Heffernan M. Willful blindness: why we ignore the obvious at our peril. New York: Walker & Co, 2012.Suche in Google Scholar

33. Ingelfinger FJ. Arrogance. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1507–11.10.1056/NEJM198012253032604Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

34. Quote Fancy [Internet]. Available at: https://quotefancy.com/quote/929421/Voltaire-Doubt-is-not-a-pleasant-condition-but-certainty-is-absurd. Accessed: December 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

35. Vedantam S. The hidden brain. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2010.Suche in Google Scholar

36. Ely JW, Graber ML, Croskerry P. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Acad Med 2011;86:307–13.10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820824cdSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

37. Gawande A. The Checklist manifesto: how to get things right. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014.Suche in Google Scholar

38. Fuller C, Cellura AP, Hibler BP, Burris K. Computer-assisted diagnosis of melanoma. Semin Cutan Med Surg 2016;35:25–30.10.12788/j.sder.2016.004Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

39. Diprose W, Buist N. Artificial intelligence in medicine: humans need not apply? N Z Med J 2016;129:73–6.Suche in Google Scholar

40. Thaler R, Sunstein C. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2009.Suche in Google Scholar

41. Lowenstein EJ. Dermatology and its unique diagnostic heuristics. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:1239–40.10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

42. Lowenstein EJ, Sidlow R. Cognitive and visual diagnostic errors in dermatology: Part 1. Br J Dermatol 2018;179:1263–9.10.1111/bjd.16932Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

43. Lowenstein EJ, Sidlow R. Diagnostic heuristics in dermatology, Part 2: metacognition and other fixes. Br J Dermatol 2018;179:1270–6.10.1111/bjd.17127Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

44. Gawande A. Cowboys and pit crews. New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/cowboys-and-pit-crews. Accessed: November 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

45. Townsend R, Bennis W. Up the organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-05-12
Accepted: 2019-06-07
Published Online: 2019-06-29
Published in Print: 2020-01-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 21.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2019-0037/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen