Recovery at the edge of error: Debunking the myth of the infallible expert

Vimla Patel, Trevor Cohen, Tripti Murarka, Joanne Olsen, Srujana Kagita, Sahiti Myneni, Timothy Buchman, Vafa Ghaemmaghami

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The notion that human error should not be tolerated is prevalent in both the public and personal perception of the performance of clinicians. However, researchers in other safety-critical domains have long since abandoned the quest for zero defects as an impractical goal, choosing to focus instead on the development of strategies to enhance the ability to recover from error. This paper presents a cognitive framework for the study of error recovery, and the results of our empirical research into error detection and recovery in the critical care domain, using both laboratory-based and naturalistic approaches. Both attending physicians and residents were prone to commit, detect and recover from errors, but the nature of these errors was different. Experts corrected the errors as soon as they detected them and were better able to detect errors requiring integration of multiple elements in the case. Residents were more cautious in making decisions showing a slower error recovery pattern, and the detected errors were more procedural in nature with specific patient outcomes. Error detection and correction are shown to be dependent on expertise, and on the nature of the everyday tasks of the clinicians concerned. Understanding the limits and failures of human decision-making is important if we are to build robust decision-support systems to manage the boundaries of risk of error in decision-making. Detection and correction of potential error is an integral part of cognitive work in the complex, critical care workplace.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)413-424
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Biomedical Informatics
Volume44
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Critical Care
Recovery
Empirical Research
Aptitude
Workplace
Decision making
Error detection
Research Personnel
Error correction
Physicians
Safety
Decision support systems
Defects

Keywords

  • Cognitive informatics
  • Decision making
  • Error detection
  • Error recovery
  • Expertise
  • Laboratory-based
  • Naturalistic
  • Patient safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Patel, V., Cohen, T., Murarka, T., Olsen, J., Kagita, S., Myneni, S., ... Ghaemmaghami, V. (2011). Recovery at the edge of error: Debunking the myth of the infallible expert. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 44(3), 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.005

Recovery at the edge of error : Debunking the myth of the infallible expert. / Patel, Vimla; Cohen, Trevor; Murarka, Tripti; Olsen, Joanne; Kagita, Srujana; Myneni, Sahiti; Buchman, Timothy; Ghaemmaghami, Vafa.

In: Journal of Biomedical Informatics, Vol. 44, No. 3, 01.06.2011, p. 413-424.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patel, V, Cohen, T, Murarka, T, Olsen, J, Kagita, S, Myneni, S, Buchman, T & Ghaemmaghami, V 2011, 'Recovery at the edge of error: Debunking the myth of the infallible expert', Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.005
Patel, Vimla ; Cohen, Trevor ; Murarka, Tripti ; Olsen, Joanne ; Kagita, Srujana ; Myneni, Sahiti ; Buchman, Timothy ; Ghaemmaghami, Vafa. / Recovery at the edge of error : Debunking the myth of the infallible expert. In: Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2011 ; Vol. 44, No. 3. pp. 413-424.
@article{00884e2664984cad830db6071ed4c2ef,
title = "Recovery at the edge of error: Debunking the myth of the infallible expert",
abstract = "The notion that human error should not be tolerated is prevalent in both the public and personal perception of the performance of clinicians. However, researchers in other safety-critical domains have long since abandoned the quest for zero defects as an impractical goal, choosing to focus instead on the development of strategies to enhance the ability to recover from error. This paper presents a cognitive framework for the study of error recovery, and the results of our empirical research into error detection and recovery in the critical care domain, using both laboratory-based and naturalistic approaches. Both attending physicians and residents were prone to commit, detect and recover from errors, but the nature of these errors was different. Experts corrected the errors as soon as they detected them and were better able to detect errors requiring integration of multiple elements in the case. Residents were more cautious in making decisions showing a slower error recovery pattern, and the detected errors were more procedural in nature with specific patient outcomes. Error detection and correction are shown to be dependent on expertise, and on the nature of the everyday tasks of the clinicians concerned. Understanding the limits and failures of human decision-making is important if we are to build robust decision-support systems to manage the boundaries of risk of error in decision-making. Detection and correction of potential error is an integral part of cognitive work in the complex, critical care workplace.",
keywords = "Cognitive informatics, Decision making, Error detection, Error recovery, Expertise, Laboratory-based, Naturalistic, Patient safety",
author = "Vimla Patel and Trevor Cohen and Tripti Murarka and Joanne Olsen and Srujana Kagita and Sahiti Myneni and Timothy Buchman and Vafa Ghaemmaghami",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "413--424",
journal = "Journal of Biomedical Informatics",
issn = "1532-0464",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recovery at the edge of error

T2 - Debunking the myth of the infallible expert

AU - Patel, Vimla

AU - Cohen, Trevor

AU - Murarka, Tripti

AU - Olsen, Joanne

AU - Kagita, Srujana

AU - Myneni, Sahiti

AU - Buchman, Timothy

AU - Ghaemmaghami, Vafa

PY - 2011/6/1

Y1 - 2011/6/1

N2 - The notion that human error should not be tolerated is prevalent in both the public and personal perception of the performance of clinicians. However, researchers in other safety-critical domains have long since abandoned the quest for zero defects as an impractical goal, choosing to focus instead on the development of strategies to enhance the ability to recover from error. This paper presents a cognitive framework for the study of error recovery, and the results of our empirical research into error detection and recovery in the critical care domain, using both laboratory-based and naturalistic approaches. Both attending physicians and residents were prone to commit, detect and recover from errors, but the nature of these errors was different. Experts corrected the errors as soon as they detected them and were better able to detect errors requiring integration of multiple elements in the case. Residents were more cautious in making decisions showing a slower error recovery pattern, and the detected errors were more procedural in nature with specific patient outcomes. Error detection and correction are shown to be dependent on expertise, and on the nature of the everyday tasks of the clinicians concerned. Understanding the limits and failures of human decision-making is important if we are to build robust decision-support systems to manage the boundaries of risk of error in decision-making. Detection and correction of potential error is an integral part of cognitive work in the complex, critical care workplace.

AB - The notion that human error should not be tolerated is prevalent in both the public and personal perception of the performance of clinicians. However, researchers in other safety-critical domains have long since abandoned the quest for zero defects as an impractical goal, choosing to focus instead on the development of strategies to enhance the ability to recover from error. This paper presents a cognitive framework for the study of error recovery, and the results of our empirical research into error detection and recovery in the critical care domain, using both laboratory-based and naturalistic approaches. Both attending physicians and residents were prone to commit, detect and recover from errors, but the nature of these errors was different. Experts corrected the errors as soon as they detected them and were better able to detect errors requiring integration of multiple elements in the case. Residents were more cautious in making decisions showing a slower error recovery pattern, and the detected errors were more procedural in nature with specific patient outcomes. Error detection and correction are shown to be dependent on expertise, and on the nature of the everyday tasks of the clinicians concerned. Understanding the limits and failures of human decision-making is important if we are to build robust decision-support systems to manage the boundaries of risk of error in decision-making. Detection and correction of potential error is an integral part of cognitive work in the complex, critical care workplace.

KW - Cognitive informatics

KW - Decision making

KW - Error detection

KW - Error recovery

KW - Expertise

KW - Laboratory-based

KW - Naturalistic

KW - Patient safety

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957623355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957623355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 20869466

AN - SCOPUS:79957623355

VL - 44

SP - 413

EP - 424

JO - Journal of Biomedical Informatics

JF - Journal of Biomedical Informatics

SN - 1532-0464

IS - 3

ER -