Cognitive and implicit biases in nurses' judgment and decision-making: A scoping review

被引:23
|
作者
Thirsk, M. Lorraine [1 ,4 ]
Panchuk, T. Julia [1 ]
Stahlke, Sarah [2 ]
Hagtvedt, Reidar [3 ]
机构
[1] Athabasca Univ, Fac Hlth Disciplines, Athabasca, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Fac Arts, Dept Sociol, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[3] Univ Alberta, Alberta Sch Business, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[4] 1 Univ Dr, Athabasca, AB T9S 3A3, Canada
关键词
Judgment and decision-making; Nursing; Clinical judgment; Cognitive bias; Implicit bias; Dual-process theory; Intuition; Scoping review; CLINICAL JUDGMENT; NURSING-CARE; PAIN; MODEL; ATTITUDES; TRIAGE; INTERVENTIONS; PROFESSIONALS; DEFINITION; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104284
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Cognitive and implicit biases of healthcare providers can lead to adverse events in healthcare and have been identified as a patient safety concern. Most research on the impact of these systematic errors in judgment has been focused on diagnostic decision-making, primarily by physicians. As the largest component of the workforce, nurses make numerous decisions that affect patient outcomes; however, literature on nurses' clinical judgment often overlooks the potential impact of bias on these decisions. The aim of this study was to map the evidence and key concepts related to bias in nurses' judgment and decision-making, including interventions to correct or overcome these biases.Methods: We conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs methodology. In November 2020 we searched CINAHL, PsychInfo, and PubMed databases to identify relevant literature. Inclusion criteria were primary research about nurses' bias; evidence of a nursing decision or action; and English language. No date or geographic limitations were set.Results: We found 77 items that met the inclusion criteria. Over half of these items were published in the last 12 years. Most research focused on implicit biases related to racial/ethnic identity, obesity, and gender; other articles examined confirmation, attribution, anchoring, and hindsight biases. Some articles examined heuristics and were included if they described the process of, and the problems with, nurse decision-making. Only 5 studies tested interventions to overcome or correct biases. 61 of the studies relied on vignettes, surveys, or recall methods, rather than examining real-world nursing practice. This could be a serious oversight because contextual factors such as cognitive load, which have a significant impact on judgment and decision-making, are not necessarily captured with vignette or survey studies. Furthermore, survey and vignette studies make it difficult to quantify the impact of these biases in the healthcare system.Conclusions: Given the serious effects that bias has on nurses' clinical judgment, and thereby patient outcomes, a concerted, systematic effort to identify and test debiasing strategies in real-world nursing settings is needed. Tweetable abstract: Bias affects nurses' clinical judgment - we need to know how to fix it. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Cognitive biases, environmental, patient and personal factors associated with critical care decision making: A scoping review
    Beldhuis, Iris E.
    Marapin, Ramesh S.
    Jiang, You Yuan
    de Souza, Nadia F. Simoes
    Georgiou, Artemis
    Kaufmann, Thomas
    Forte, Jose Castela
    van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2021, 64 : 144 - 153
  • [32] Modeling decision-making biases
    McShane, Marjorie
    Nirenburg, Sergei
    Jarrell, Bruce
    [J]. BIOLOGICALLY INSPIRED COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES, 2013, 3 : 39 - 50
  • [33] COGNITIVE BIASES IN DECISION MAKING
    Cortada de Kohan, Nuria
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2008, 1 (01): : 68 - 73
  • [34] Modelling decision-making biases
    Cerracchio, Ettore
    Miletic, Steven
    Forstmann, Birte U.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2023, 17
  • [35] Decision making biases in the allied health professions: A systematic scoping review
    Featherston, Rebecca
    Downie, Laura E.
    Vogel, Adam P.
    Galvin, Karyn L.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (10):
  • [36] SHARED DECISION-MAKING IN GENETIC COUNSELING: A SCOPING REVIEW
    Peng, Chenyang
    Ni, Ning
    Li, Yiyu
    Tan, Xiangmin
    Tu, Chaofeng
    Mei, Sun
    [J]. ACTA BIOETHICA, 2022, 28 (02) : 227 - 237
  • [37] Shared responsibility for decision-making in NICU: A scoping review
    Pellikka, Hanna-Kaisa
    Axelin, Anna
    Sankilampi, Ulla
    Kangasniemi, Mari
    [J]. NURSING ETHICS, 2023, 30 (03) : 462 - 476
  • [38] Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
    Thompson, John
    Bujalka, Helena
    McKeever, Stephen
    Lipscomb, Adrienne
    Moore, Sonya
    Hill, Nicole
    Kinney, Sharon
    Cham, Kwang Meng
    Martin, Joanne
    Bowers, Patrick
    Gerdtz, Marie
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [39] Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
    John Thompson
    Helena Bujalka
    Stephen McKeever
    Adrienne Lipscomb
    Sonya Moore
    Nicole Hill
    Sharon Kinney
    Kwang Meng Cham
    Joanne Martin
    Patrick Bowers
    Marie Gerdtz
    [J]. BMC Medical Education, 23
  • [40] Conflict before the courtroom: challenging cognitive biases in critical decision-making
    Johal, Harleen Kaur
    Danbury, Christopher
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2021, 47 (12) : E36