Sheharyar Raza, Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Jeannie Callum
{"title":"医院输血医学中的推理陷阱。","authors":"Sheharyar Raza, Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Jeannie Callum","doi":"10.1111/tme.13104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hospital-based transfusion involves hundreds of daily medical decisions. Medical decision-making under uncertainty is susceptible to cognitive biases which can lead to systematic errors of reasoning and suboptimal patient care. Here we review common cognitive biases that may be relevant for transfusion practice.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Biases were selected based on categorical diversity, evidence from healthcare contexts, and relevance for transfusion medicine. For each bias, we provide background psychology literature, representative clinical examples, considerations for transfusion medicine, and strategies for mitigation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We report seven cognitive biases relating to memory (availability heuristic, limited memory), interpretation (framing effects, anchoring bias), and incentives (search satisficing, sunk cost fallacy, feedback sanction).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pitfalls of reasoning due to cognitive biases are prominent in medical decision making and relevant for hospital transfusion medicine. An awareness of these phenomena might stimulate further research, encourage corrective measures, and motivate nudge-based interventions to improve transfusion practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":23306,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Sheharyar Raza, Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Jeannie Callum\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/tme.13104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hospital-based transfusion involves hundreds of daily medical decisions. Medical decision-making under uncertainty is susceptible to cognitive biases which can lead to systematic errors of reasoning and suboptimal patient care. Here we review common cognitive biases that may be relevant for transfusion practice.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Biases were selected based on categorical diversity, evidence from healthcare contexts, and relevance for transfusion medicine. For each bias, we provide background psychology literature, representative clinical examples, considerations for transfusion medicine, and strategies for mitigation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We report seven cognitive biases relating to memory (availability heuristic, limited memory), interpretation (framing effects, anchoring bias), and incentives (search satisficing, sunk cost fallacy, feedback sanction).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pitfalls of reasoning due to cognitive biases are prominent in medical decision making and relevant for hospital transfusion medicine. An awareness of these phenomena might stimulate further research, encourage corrective measures, and motivate nudge-based interventions to improve transfusion practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13104\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13104","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.
Introduction: Hospital-based transfusion involves hundreds of daily medical decisions. Medical decision-making under uncertainty is susceptible to cognitive biases which can lead to systematic errors of reasoning and suboptimal patient care. Here we review common cognitive biases that may be relevant for transfusion practice.
Materials and methods: Biases were selected based on categorical diversity, evidence from healthcare contexts, and relevance for transfusion medicine. For each bias, we provide background psychology literature, representative clinical examples, considerations for transfusion medicine, and strategies for mitigation.
Results: We report seven cognitive biases relating to memory (availability heuristic, limited memory), interpretation (framing effects, anchoring bias), and incentives (search satisficing, sunk cost fallacy, feedback sanction).
Conclusion: Pitfalls of reasoning due to cognitive biases are prominent in medical decision making and relevant for hospital transfusion medicine. An awareness of these phenomena might stimulate further research, encourage corrective measures, and motivate nudge-based interventions to improve transfusion practice.
期刊介绍:
Transfusion Medicine publishes articles on transfusion medicine in its widest context, including blood transfusion practice (blood procurement, pharmaceutical, clinical, scientific, computing and documentary aspects), immunohaematology, immunogenetics, histocompatibility, medico-legal applications, and related molecular biology and biotechnology.
In addition to original articles, which may include brief communications and case reports, the journal contains a regular educational section (based on invited reviews and state-of-the-art reports), technical section (including quality assurance and current practice guidelines), leading articles, letters to the editor, occasional historical articles and signed book reviews. Some lectures from Society meetings that are likely to be of general interest to readers of the Journal may be published at the discretion of the Editor and subject to the availability of space in the Journal.