Collaboration during the diagnostic decision-making process: When does it help?

Abstract

When making complex decisions, such as a medical diagnosis, decision makers typically gather, analyze, and synthesize (integrate) information. In a previous study, we showed that delegating such complex decisions to collaborating pairs increases decision quality substantially compared to that of individuals, without requiring different information gathering. Given the higher costs associated with teamwork, however, it is of great practical interest to understand when in the process the performance benefits of teams may arise, so that particular subtasks can be delegated to teams when most appropriate. We thus conducted an experimental study in which fourth-year medical students (n = 109) worked either in pairs or alone on two separate subtasks of the diagnostic process: (1) analyzing diagnostic test results (e.g., X-rays) and (2) integrating previously interpreted test results into diagnoses. Linear mixed-effects models revealed a small benefit of collaborating pairs over individuals in both subtasks. We conclude that collaborating with a peer may pay off both when analyzing information and when integrating it into a diagnosis as it provides the opportunity to correct each other's errors and to make use of a greater knowledge base. These findings encourage the strategic use of collaboration with a colleague when making complex decisions. Further research into the underlying processes is needed.