Cognitive bias and severity of harm following surgery: Plan for workflow debiasing strategy.

INTRODUCTION

This study analyzes the relationship between cognitive bias (CB) and harm severity as measured by Clavien-Dindo Scores (CD).

METHODS

A prospectively collected series of 655 severity matched general surgical cases with complications were analyzed. Cases were evaluated for CB and assigned harm scores as defined by CD grade. Potentially mitigating "debiasing" strategies were identified for each bias attribution.

RESULTS

Among cases with CB, 24% (55/232) were CD(I-II) and 76% (177/232) were CD(III-V). Odds ratio suggests that serious complications occur nearly 60% more frequently when CB is identified. The CBs identified with severe harm were Overconfidence, Commission, Anchoring, Confirmation, and Diagnosis Momentum. Preliminary data on debiasing strategies suggest diagnosis review, linear reasoning and Type II thinking may be relevant in over 85% of complications.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of CB is increased in patients sustaining severe harm. Understanding the specific CBs identified and their mitigating debiasing strategies may improve outcomes.