Cognitive Biases in Clinical Decision-Making: Reducing Diagnostic Errors
Diagnostic errors – missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses – are a significant patient safety concern. Research indicates that diagnostic errors occur in roughly 5% of U.S. outpatient adult encounters and contribute to an estimated 6–17% of adverse events in hospitals. These errors are also a leading cause of malpractice claims. A 2015 Institute of Medicine report concluded that most people will experience at least one diagnostic error in their lifetime. Cognitive biases – systematic errors in thinking – are now recognised as major contributors to diagnostic mistakes. In fact, more than 100 identifiable cognitive biases have been documented in healthcare decision-making. Studies of diagnostic failures show that cognitive factors (as opposed to knowledge deficits or purely system issues) are implicated in a large proportion of cases. For example, an analysis of 100 internal medicine errors found cognitive factors in 74% of cases. The most frequent problem was “premature closure,” meaning the physician stopped considering alternatives after an initial diagnosis – essentially a cognitive bias of jumping to conclusions. Reducing diagnostic errors therefore demands understanding how cognitive psychology and biases influence clinical reasoning, and implementing strategies to “debias” our thinking. This article explores common cognitive biases in medical decision-making, how they lead to missed or delayed diagnoses, and evidence-based techniques to mitigate their impact. The goal is to equip general practitioners and specialists with practical insights to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Cognitive Psychology of Diagnostic Reasoning
Clinical reasoning can be understood through the lens of cognitive psychology’s dual process theory. Doctors generally use two modes of thinking when evaluating patients: a fast, intuitive mode and a slower, analytical mode. The intuitive mode (often called System 1) operates automatically and unconsciously – it relies on pattern recognition and mental shortcuts (heuristics) that enable quick decisions. This is the mental autopilot that lets an experienced physician instantly recognise classic signs of a heart attack or an asthma exacerbation from pattern memory. In contrast, the analytical mode (System 2) is deliberate, effortful, and conscious – for example, systematically working through a complex differential diagnosis or applying formal logic. Importantly, both modes are essential in clinical practice: System 1 is efficient and often accurate, while System 2 is thorough and can handle novel or complex problems. However, the intuitive System 1 is more prone to error because its inner workings are hidden from conscious oversight. The mental shortcuts that make intuition rapid – known as heuristics – can sometimes misfire and become cognitive biases. In other words, cognitive biases are byproducts of our normal thinking processes (especially System 1) that skew judgment in particular ways. These biases can cause a physician to form a wrong diagnostic impression or to stick with an incorrect diagnosis even when evidence suggests otherwise. Cognitive psychology has shown that these thinking errors are not signs of incompetence but rather universal human tendencies in decision-making. Recognising when we are in a high-risk situation for bias (e.g. under time pressure, faced with ambiguous symptoms, or feeling certain after a quick initial impression) is the first step toward improving diagnostic reasoning. In the following sections, we discuss several major cognitive biases that affect clinical decision-making and illustrate how they contribute to diagnostic errors.
Major Cognitive Biases in Medical Decision-Making
Anchoring Bias
Anchoring bias is the tendency to lock onto salient features of a patient’s initial presentation and cling to an initial diagnosis, anchoring future thoughts on that first impression even as new information emerges. In practice, anchoring leads clinicians to be overly influenced by early clues or a previous diagnosis and to insufficiently adjust their thinking when subsequent findings point in a different direction. This bias often manifests as premature closure – accepting a diagnosis before fully verifying it – and it underlies many missed diagnoses. For example, consider a patient who arrives with chest pain and a history of anxiety: the physician quickly labels it a panic attack and dismisses later abnormal vital signs that actually indicate a pulmonary embolism. In one case analysis, a 61-year-old man with foot pain was repeatedly assumed to have peripheral neuropathy on the basis of his prior stroke history; clinicians anchored on that explanation and failed to perform adequate vascular exams. Over multiple visits, despite worsening leg symptoms, the diagnostic impression never shifted – ultimately delaying the diagnosis of critical limb ischemia until the damage was irreversible. Anchoring bias was “particularly strong in this case” as the patient returned repeatedly with red-flag findings, yet the team stuck with the original diagnosis. This illustrates how anchoring can lead to diagnostic momentum, where an initial diagnosis solidifies and gets carried forward by other providers without question. Anchoring is pernicious because once an idea has taken hold, confirmation bias (discussed below) kicks in to further cement that belief. Indeed, about 75% of diagnostic errors have a cognitive component, often involving the twin problems of stopping the search once an initial impression is formed and then sticking to that impression despite contrary evidence. The resulting delay in considering the correct diagnosis can have serious consequences for the patient. To combat anchoring, experts recommend deliberately “thinking twice”: after an initial diagnosis is made, take a step back (a “diagnostic timeout”) to ask, “What else could this be?” This simple reflective prompt can counteract the urge to anchor and has been shown to catch missed possibilities.
Availability Bias
Availability bias refers to the tendency to judge the likelihood of a diagnosis based on how easily it comes to mind – often influenced by recent experiences with similar cases. In other words, if a disease is “available” in your memory, you are more likely to presume the patient in front of you has it. This can lead to errors when the readily recalled diagnosis is not the correct one for the current patient. Clinicians are particularly vulnerable to availability bias after seeing clusters of a disease. For example, during peak influenza season, a physician who has diagnosed several flu cases in a row might reflexively diagnose the next patient with fever and cough as “just the flu,” missing a pneumonia or pulmonary embolism that presents with similar symptoms. Cognitive psychology experiments have demonstrated availability bias in medical reasoning. In one classic study, internal medicine residents were first asked to diagnose a set of clinical vignettes, then later given new cases that subtly resembled the prior ones. The residents more often misdiagnosed the new cases by inappropriately recalling the earlier diagnoses – a clear availability effect. Notably, asking the physicians to engage in conscious reflection on the case mitigated the influence of availability bias, improving their diagnostic accuracy. This finding has been replicated, showing that structured reflection (essentially a debiasing strategy) can counteract availability bias and reduce diagnostic error. In real patient safety data, availability bias has been implicated in misses such as assuming a young healthy patient has a benign condition because serious illnesses in that age group are rarely seen (thus not “available” in memory). Conversely, it might lead a doctor to overestimate the likelihood of a dramatic but rare diagnosis after recently encountering a case of it. In either scenario, the ease of recall skews the clinician’s estimation of probability. Awareness of this bias can help – for instance, reminding oneself that “common things are common” (to guard against a rare but memorable diagnosis that’s top-of-mind) or that an unusual presentation might still be a routine illness (if one’s recent experience is making a rare case seem common). Teaching clinicians to explicitly consider base rates (actual disease prevalence) can also blunt the distortions of availability.
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out or favour information that confirms one’s existing beliefs or hypotheses, while discounting or overlooking information that contradicts them. Once a physician has formed an initial diagnostic impression (right or wrong), confirmation bias can cause them to selectively collect history details, physical exam findings, or test results that support that diagnosis and to explain away or ignore any conflicting data. In a practical sense, this means the clinician may stop asking certain questions or may interpret ambiguous findings in a way that fits their presupposition. For example, if a doctor prematurely decides a patient’s abdominal pain is due to gastritis, they might focus their history on dietary habits and miss risk factors for vascular causes, or they might attribute an abnormal lab result to a lab error because it doesn’t fit their gastritis narrative. This bias “leads physicians to see what they want to see.” A striking study of medical students showed how confirmation bias operates: given a hypothetical case, students overwhelmingly sought information that would confirm their favoured diagnosis, and only 17% actively looked for evidence to distinguish between possible diagnoses or disprove their initial idea. This means that in most cases, they did not probe for data that might have refuted their preliminary diagnosis – a behaviour that mirrors what happens in clinical practice and contributes to missed diagnoses. Confirmation bias is closely related to anchoring; it essentially compounds anchoring by ensuring we find support for our first impression and resist changing our minds. It also contributes to diagnostic momentum in team settings: an initial diagnosis that goes unchallenged can be passed from one clinician to the next, gaining credibility merely by repetition. For instance, an ER physician labels a case as “migraine,” the inpatient team then continues treating for migraine without re-evaluating, and a serious brain haemorrhage diagnosis is delayed. To reduce confirmation bias, clinicians can train themselves to actively seek disconfirming evidence – essentially, to play devil’s advocate against their working diagnosis. One can ask: “If my diagnosis is wrong, what else could this finding represent?” or ensure that alternative hypotheses are tested rather than only ordering confirmatory tests for the presumed diagnosis. Encouraging second opinions or case discussions can also inject fresh perspectives that challenge one’s initial assumptions.
Other Cognitive Biases
In addition to anchoring, availability, and confirmation bias, many other cognitive biases have been identified in clinical decision-making. Some notable ones include:
Overconfidence Bias: Overconfidence is the common tendency to overestimate one’s knowledge, abilities, or the accuracy of one’s conclusions. In medicine, overconfidence bias may lead a clinician to act on incomplete information or hunches, convinced that they “just know” the diagnosis. This can prevent adequate uncertainty management – for example, not ordering additional tests or not consulting a specialist because the physician is overly sure of their initial judgment. A survey of emergency physicians’ diagnostic errors found that overconfidence was the single most common cognitive bias contributing to mistakes (present in about 22.5% of cases). Overconfidence can also discourage second opinions or critical second looks, thus exacerbating other biases. Recognising humility in diagnosis – acknowledging what is not known – is crucial to counteract this bias.
Framing Effect: The framing effect occurs when the way information is presented (the “frame”) unduly influences decision-making. In healthcare, how a case is framed – by the patient, triage nurse, or referring provider – can bias the clinician’s subsequent thinking. For example, a patient labelled as a “frequent flyer” might not get the same thorough workup due to a frame of “likely nothing serious,” or conversely a dramatic description (“worst headache of life”) might steer everyone toward one diagnosis (subarachnoid haemorrhage) even when other information points elsewhere. Subtle differences in wording (calling a test result “90% accurate” vs “10% false positive rate”) also shift physician decisions due to framing. To mitigate framing bias, clinicians should seek to reframe the case in their own neutral terms and verify the data for themselves. Approaching each new patient with fresh eyes, regardless of labels or the context provided, can reduce this bias.
Diagnostic Momentum: As mentioned earlier, diagnostic momentum is the snowballing of an initial diagnosis as it gets passed along, such that it becomes accepted as fact without sufficient scrutiny. It is not a separate cognitive process per se, but a consequence of confirmation and anchoring biases operating within team communication. For instance, an EMT report or referring note anchors the next provider on a specific diagnosis, and each handoff cements that diagnosis further. Breaking diagnostic momentum requires deliberate pause and scepticism – essentially resetting and reconsidering the diagnosis rather than inheriting it blindly.
Commission Bias and Omission Bias: These are two sides of a related coin. Commission bias is the tendency to favour action over inaction – for example, a belief that “doing something” is better than doing nothing, which can lead to unnecessary treatments or interventions. Omission bias is the opposite – a tendency toward inaction, such as avoiding a indicated intervention due to fear of causing harm. In diagnosis, commission bias might manifest as ordering a battery of tests or jumping into an invasive procedure based on a quick, unverified hunch, whereas omission bias might manifest as hesitating to order an aggressive diagnostic test (like an invasive biopsy or a costly scan) even when it’s warranted, perhaps rationalising that “we should wait and see.” Both biases can lead to error: commission bias can cause false-positive findings and misdirection (or patient harm from unnecessary procedures), while omission bias can delay necessary diagnosis (e.g. not pursuing a definitive test for fear of being wrong or causing discomfort). A balanced approach requires awareness of these impulses and focusing on what the patient’s situation truly calls for, rather than one’s bias toward action or inaction.
Sunk Cost Bias: The sunk cost effect (or sunk cost fallacy) is the reluctance to abandon a course of action once significant time, effort, or resources have been invested in it – “throwing good money after bad.” In clinical reasoning, a sunk cost bias might cause a doctor to stick with a diagnosis or treatment plan because they have already invested so much in it (e.g. numerous tests, or they have publicly committed to the diagnosis), even when new evidence suggests it’s wrong. This can lead to prolonged pursuit of the wrong diagnosis. To counteract this, clinicians should remember that diagnoses don’t earn validity by the effort spent on them; one must be willing to start over if needed, for the patient’s sake.
There are many other cognitive biases (e.g. “ascertainment bias,” where stereotypes or expectations influence how information is gathered; “visceral bias,” where emotions toward a patient alter objectivity; “blind-spot bias,” where one fails to recognise their own biases, etc.), but the ones described above are among the most frequently implicated in diagnostic errors. In fact, a review in emergency medicine found that the majority of cognitive-related diagnostic errors involved a handful of biases: overconfidence, confirmation, availability, and anchoring. Understanding these common failure modes in thinking can help clinicians recognise when they may be falling prey to a bias in real time. Notably, cognitive biases often operate in combination – for example, overconfidence can amplify anchoring, and confirmation bias can reinforce both. Given their ubiquity, complete elimination of cognitive biases is unrealistic; instead, the focus should be on managing biases by fostering strategies and systems that catch our mental errors before they cause harm.
How Cognitive Biases Lead to Missed or Delayed Diagnoses
Cognitive biases contribute to diagnostic errors by distorting clinical reasoning at various stages – from initial presentation to interpretation of diagnostic tests. Biases can cause physicians to gather incomplete information, misinterpret or overlook critical data, and prematurely stop considering alternative explanations. The outcome is that a wrong diagnosis becomes cemented, or a correct diagnosis is substantially delayed. Patient safety research provides many illustrative examples:
Anchoring and missed diagnosis: In the earlier case of the man with foot pain, anchoring on neuropathy led to a missed diagnosis of critical limb ischemia until the patient had irreversible damage. Similarly, multiple malpractice case analyses have shown anchoring at fault when providers cling to an initial diagnosis despite red flags, resulting in delayed treatment. Anchoring bias has been cited as a factor in treatment delays for conditions like sepsis or stroke when initial trivial diagnoses (e.g. gastroenteritis or migraine) were not revised in time. It illustrates how the initial frame of reference can entirely derail the diagnostic process if not checked.
Confirmation bias and incorrect treatment: Confirmation bias can lead a clinician to ignore laboratory or imaging results that don’t fit their presumed diagnosis. For example, a doctor convinced an infection is viral might ignore a markedly elevated white blood cell count suggesting a possible bacterial process, leading to lack of appropriate antibiotics. In surgical fields, The Joint Commission has noted that confirmation bias contributed to wrong-site surgeries – surgeons interpreted verification checks in a way that confirmed their assumption of the correct site, rather than truly verifying. In diagnostic terms, confirmation bias might cause a radiologist to stop searching after finding one abnormality (“satisfaction of search”), missing a second lesion, because the first finding confirmed their expectation.
Availability bias and overlooked alternative: If a clinician’s recent experience makes one diagnosis salient, they may overlook a less common but actual diagnosis. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians reported initially attributing any respiratory symptoms to COVID-19 (high availability) and sometimes missing other critical illnesses like pulmonary embolism or heart failure that were the true cause. Retrospective reviews of diagnostic error cases have found that recent exposure to a disease skews decision-making – one study showed that after handling several cardiac arrest cases, physicians were more likely to over-call cardiac issues in subsequent patients with atypical presentations, missing non-cardiac causes.
Overall, cognitive biases set up predictable failure patterns in clinical reasoning. By favoring one explanation too early (anchoring/premature closure), not actively checking for discordant evidence (confirmation bias), or being swayed by memory and context (availability and framing effects), physicians can inadvertently choose the wrong diagnostic path. These thought patterns are often invisible to the decision-maker – the physician usually does not realise that a bias is at work. That is why building safety nets and debiasing strategies into our practice is so important. The next section discusses strategies to reduce the impact of cognitive biases on diagnostics, thus enhancing accuracy and patient safety.
Debiasing Strategies: Reducing Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis
While we cannot entirely rid ourselves of cognitive biases, we can implement debiasing strategies – techniques and practices to recognise and mitigate biased reasoning. A combination of individual cognitive techniques and system-level supports has been suggested to help clinicians avoid diagnostic pitfalls. Key strategies include structured reflection on cases, use of diagnostic checklists, seeking second opinions or team input, and taking “cognitive timeouts” to reassess. These approaches encourage a more mindful, analytical mindset (engaging System 2) at critical junctures, serving as a check on our fast but fallible intuitive judgments. Below, we explore each strategy and the evidence supporting it:
Structured Reflection
Structured reflection (or reflective reasoning) is a deliberate process of reconsidering and analysing one’s diagnostic thinking. Instead of immediately accepting the first diagnosis that comes to mind, the clinician systematically reflects on the case: reviewing findings, questioning initial assumptions, and considering alternative explanations. This technique essentially forces a switch from the intuitive mode to a more analytical mode, which can catch errors arising from heuristic thinking. Evidence shows that structured reflection can improve diagnostic accuracy. For example, in the experimental study mentioned earlier, internal medicine residents induced to make quick diagnoses showed availability bias, but when prompted to reflect on the case, their performance improved and the bias effect diminished. Another study found that when physicians were asked to pause and generate a list of alternatives and compare them (a reflective strategy), diagnostic error rates dropped compared to when they relied on instant intuition. Structured reflection can be as simple as a mental review with specific questions: “What findings support my diagnosis? What findings don’t fit? What else could it be? Have I considered the worst-case scenario?” Training programs have started teaching residents “cognitive forcing” strategies which are essentially reflective prompts to use when encountering certain high-risk situations (e.g. atypical presentations). By consciously reflecting, physicians may override biases like anchoring and confirmation, effectively giving their System 2 a chance to correct System 1’s initial output. Incorporating a habit of reflection – even if briefly – for complex or uncertain cases can significantly reduce diagnostic mistakes. It is important, however, to balance reflection with efficiency; not every case needs an extensive analytical exercise, but trigger points (such as diagnostic ambiguity, persistent symptoms despite treatment, or a “gut feeling” something doesn’t add up) should prompt structured reflection.
Use of Checklists
Checklists are well-known safety tools in industries like aviation and have gained traction in medicine (e.g. surgical safety checklists) to reduce errors. In the context of diagnosis, diagnostic checklists are cognitive aids designed to ensure thorough thinking and to counteract biases and omissions. The basic idea is to provide an external structure for clinical reasoning so that the physician is not relying solely on memory or intuition. Checklists can help combat cognitive biases by prompting the clinician to consider possibilities and verify key steps that might otherwise be overlooked in the heat of the moment. Patient safety experts have proposed several types of diagnostic checklists: for example, a general cognitive checklist that reminds the clinician to pause and consider if anchoring or confirmation bias might be occurring (metacognitive prompts), a differential diagnosis checklist that lists “don’t-miss” diagnoses or common pitfalls for a given chief complaint, and disease-specific checklists that highlight common diagnostic mistakes for certain conditions. One published example is a checklist used in emergency medicine that, for any patient with chest pain, prompts the provider to explicitly consider life-threatening causes like acute coronary syndrome, aortic dissection, and pulmonary embolism, even if the initial impression is something benign. By doing so, it guards against availability bias (e.g. assuming it’s just musculoskeletal because that’s common) and anchoring. Early reports of using checklists in diagnosis have been encouraging. In one study, giving physicians a prompt with a list of potential diagnoses improved diagnostic accuracy compared to those relying on memory alone. Checklists force a more ordered, comprehensive thought process, which is especially helpful under conditions of fatigue or stress when biases thrive. However, checklists must be well-designed and not overly burdensome – they are meant to support, not replace, clinical judgment. As of now, formal diagnostic checklists are still being refined. They have not yet reached the level of evidence and adoption of surgical safety checklists, and some critics worry about over-reliance or alert fatigue. Still, many experts see potential for checklists to reduce cognitive errors: by ensuring a physician always asks themselves, for instance, “Could it be something else?” or “Have I considered the worst-case scenario and not just the most obvious?”, the risk of overlooking a critical diagnosis due to bias is reduced. Even a simple mnemonic or template (for example, the IMPROVE mnemonic: Illness script match? Must-not-miss? Probabilities? Re-check triggers? Objective data complete? Verify with a second opinion? Explain everything?) can function as a mini-checklist before finalising a diagnosis.
Seeking Second Opinions and Team Input
Medicine should ideally be a team sport when it comes to challenging diagnoses. Second opinions, case discussions, and multidisciplinary reviews are powerful debiasing mechanisms because they introduce fresh viewpoints and decrease the chance that one person’s cognitive bias will go unchecked. Another clinician might catch an oversight or bring up an alternative that the primary provider didn’t consider. Studies show that second opinions frequently lead to changes in diagnosis. For example, a Mayo Clinic analysis of 286 patients referred for a second opinion found that in only 12% of cases was the original diagnosis confirmed without change. In 21% of cases, the second opinion resulted in a completely new diagnosis, and in roughly two-thirds of cases, the diagnosis was refined or redefined. In other words, the act of having another physician review the case led to a substantial diagnostic shift in the vast majority of patients. Many of those initial diagnostic errors or gaps can be attributed to cognitive biases by the first provider – for instance, a specialist might identify that the referring doctor anchored on a less likely diagnosis or missed a key piece of data. Second opinions can thus serve as a check on individual biases, ensuring that the diagnostic process benefits from more than one perspective. Beyond formal second opinions, engaging in team-based diagnostic decision-making can help. Hospitals have implemented things like diagnostic management teams or regular case conferences for difficult cases. Even an informal “kerbside” consult in the hallway can be the nudge that causes a clinician to rethink an assumption. Importantly, the culture needs to encourage open dialogue and psychological safety, so that junior team members feel empowered to question a leading diagnosis or ask “could it be something else?” without fear. Structured team practices, such as morning huddles or post-admission case reviews, can institutionalise this. Some institutions have also trialed diagnosis review committees for cases of diagnostic error (like morbidity and mortality rounds focused on cognitive aspects) – these forums promote learning from biases and encourage seeking input in future cases. It is also valuable to involve patients and families as allies in the diagnostic process; their persistent questions or lack of improvement can be a signal to get a second look. In summary, humility and collaboration go hand in hand: recognising that any individual – no matter how experienced – can succumb to biases, and thus welcoming a second pair of eyes on a perplexing case, is a key strategy for safer diagnosis.
Cognitive “Timeouts” and Diagnostic Pauses
Borrowing from the concept of a surgical timeout (a pause before incision to verify correct patient/procedure), a cognitive timeout or diagnostic pause is a planned short break in the diagnostic process to reassess and confirm that one is on the right track. This is a moment to momentarily step back from “auto-pilot” mode and mindfully review the situation, specifically to catch biases that might be influencing decision-making. A cognitive timeout might be as brief as 30 seconds of silent thinking or a quick mental or written checklist before finalising a diagnosis. One implementation of this idea in primary care is something called the “diagnostic pause.” In a pilot study in outpatient clinics, providers received an electronic prompt to perform a diagnostic pause for patients who returned with unresolved issues within a short timeframe (a red flag for potential missed diagnosis). The prompt asked the clinician to reflect on the diagnosis and answer a few questions. This simple intervention led to the clinicians changing their diagnostic impression or management in 13% of the cases after the pause. In other words, one out of eight diagnostic pause prompts uncovered a need to adjust the working diagnosis – an indication that without the pause, those would likely have been diagnostic errors or delays. Cognitive timeouts are especially useful in error-prone situations, such as when dealing with very atypical presentations, when feeling uncertain, or conversely when a diagnosis seems almost “too easy” (which might signal anchoring on an obvious answer without due diligence). Some experts recommend taking a diagnostic timeout at specific junctures: for example, at the time of hospital admission (ask “is there a unifying diagnosis that explains everything?”), at each transition of care or handoff (reassess key data), and whenever a patient is not improving as expected (re-evaluate assumptions). During a cognitive timeout, one should consciously check for biases: Am I anchoring on something? Did I only seek confirming evidence? Is something I’m ignoring actually important? By fostering this habit, clinicians can catch themselves in a biased reasoning loop and correct course. Hospitals and clinics can encourage diagnostic pauses by building them into protocols – for instance, an electronic health record might flag a “diagnostic timeout” reminder for high-risk cases or after a certain threshold of visits, ensuring the provider takes that moment to pause. Ultimately, cognitive timeouts promote mindfulness in diagnosis, countering the tendency to rush to closure. They create a space for the clinician’s reflective System 2 thinking to engage and potentially override a biased System 1 judgment.
Additional Approaches
Beyond the strategies above, other approaches to reduce cognitive errors include formal education and feedback on diagnostic performance, use of clinical decision support systems, and cultivating an institutional culture that prioritises diagnostic safety. Educating clinicians about common biases and raising awareness (through seminars or cognitive simulation cases) is a starting point – studies suggest that simply knowing about biases isn’t always enough to overcome them, but it sets the stage for using debiasing techniques. Decision support tools integrated into electronic systems can provide assistive checks (for example, differential diagnosis generators or reminders of “don’t miss” conditions for certain presentations). These tools, if well-designed, can act like a persistently available second opinion or checklist, though they must be user-friendly to be adopted. Regular feedback and calibration are also key: clinicians should be encouraged to follow up on their patients’ outcomes and diagnostic confirmations. Feedback (like autopsy results, or callback when a patient seen in urgent care is later admitted with a different diagnosis) can be a powerful teacher to reveal one’s own biases in hindsight and prompt adjustments in future reasoning. Over time, such feedback helps physicians develop better calibration of their confidence levels and more nuanced reasoning strategies (for instance, learning that “I tend to overestimate how often X occurs, I should be more cautious next time”). Lastly, system fixes such as ensuring sufficient consultation time for complex cases, and having readily accessible subspecialists or diagnostic centers, help reduce time pressure and knowledge gaps which often exacerbate cognitive biases. In sum, a multi-pronged approach – individual cognitive strategies, team-based checks, and supportive tools – offers the best protection against diagnostic errors caused by cognitive biases.
Conclusion
Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making are now understood as a major source of diagnostic errors and patient harm. Anchoring on first impressions, letting recent experiences skew our judgment (availability), seeing only confirming evidence, and other biases are natural tendencies of the human mind, especially under the conditions that clinicians often work: high volume, high stress, and need for efficiency. Recognising that “to err is human” in this cognitive sense is vital – it removes the stigma and opens the door to implementing safeguards. By applying insights from cognitive psychology, we can explain why even skilled practitioners make diagnostic mistakes and, more importantly, how to prevent them. Strategies such as structured reflection, use of diagnostic checklists, obtaining second opinions, and taking diagnostic timeouts introduce a healthy dose of System 2 thinking into the diagnostic process, thereby counteracting the pitfalls of our heuristic-driven System 1. These debiasing techniques, combined with an organisational culture that encourages diagnostic curiosity and teamwork, can materially reduce missed or delayed diagnoses. As research in this field grows, clinicians should stay informed about cognitive biases and consciously integrate debiasing practices into their routine. For the general practitioner coordinating care or the specialist faced with a rare presentation, being mindful of cognitive biases is as important as having medical knowledge – it is a critical part of clinical reasoning competence. By treating our cognitive processes with the same rigor as we do other medical interventions (checking for errors, following best practices), we move toward the goal of more reliable, accurate diagnoses. In turn, this enhances patient safety, improves trust in the healthcare system, and ultimately saves lives. Diagnostic excellence requires not just knowledge and experience, but also self-awareness of how we think. In striving for “mindful practice” over “mindless practice”, clinicians can reduce diagnostic errors and provide care that truly reflects the art and science of medicine at its best.
References
Webster, C. S., & Weller, J. M. (2021). Cognitive biases in diagnosis and decision making during anaesthesia and intensive care. BJA Education, 21(11), 420–425. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjae.2021.07.004. (Discusses dual process thinking and common cognitive biases in anesthesia; notes over 100 biases identified and 10–15% diagnostic error rate.)
Kunitomo, K., Harada, T., & Watari, T. (2022). Cognitive biases encountered by physicians in the emergency room. BMC Emergency Medicine, 22, 148. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-022-00708-3. (Survey of diagnostic errors in Japanese ER; cognitive factors in 96% of errors, with overconfidence 22.5%, confirmation 21.2%, availability 12.4%, anchoring 11.4% as most common biases.)
Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005). Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(13), 1493–1499. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493. (Classic study of 100 diagnostic errors; found cognitive factors in 74% and system factors in 65%; premature closure was the single most common cognitive error, highlighting importance of considering alternatives.)
Etchells, E. (2015). Anchoring bias with critical implications. AHRQ WebM&M (Morbidity & Mortality Rounds on the Web), June 2015. Retrieved from AHRQ Patient Safety Network: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/web-mm/anchoring-bias-critical-implications. (Case commentary on a missed peripheral arterial disease due to anchoring on neuropathy; defines anchoring and premature closure, and explores contributing biases like confirmation bias. Offers strategies such as “consider what else it could be”.)
Mamede, S., van Gog, T., van den Berge, K., et al. (2010). Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA, 304(11), 1198–1203. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1276. (Experimental study demonstrating that recent experience can induce availability bias in diagnoses, and that prompting reflective reasoning significantly improved accuracy. Supports the value of structured reflection in debiasing.)
Ely, J. W., Graber, M. L., & Croskerry, P. (2011). Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine, 86(3), 307–313. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820824cd. (Proposal of using checklists as a cognitive debiasing tool in diagnosis. Describes general cognitive checklists and differential checklists to avoid common diagnostic pitfalls. Emphasises that checklists provide an alternative to reliance on memory and intuition.)
Huang, G. C., Kriegel, G., Wheaton, C., & colleagues. (2018). Implementation of diagnostic pauses in the ambulatory setting. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(6), 492–497. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007192. (Study of a “diagnostic pause” intervention in outpatient clinics: an EHR-triggered prompt for clinicians to reflect when patients returned within 2 weeks. Providers changed management in 13% of prompted cases, suggesting that a brief cognitive timeout can uncover potential diagnostic errors.)
Zimmermann, E. (2017, April 4). Mayo Clinic researchers demonstrate value of second opinions. Mayo Clinic News Network. Retrieved from https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-demonstrate-value-of-second-opinions/. (Press release on a Mayo Clinic study: only 12% of patients had their initial diagnosis confirmed on second opinion, while 21% received a completely new diagnosis and 66% a refined diagnosis. Underscores how second opinions detect diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.)
Smith, T. M. (2021, February 4). 4 widespread cognitive biases and how doctors can overcome them. American Medical Association (AMA) Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/4-widespread-cognitive-biases-and-how-doctors-can-overcome-them. (AMA article summarising common biases – confirmation, anchoring, affect heuristic, outcomes bias – and discussing educational approaches to mitigate them. Notably defines confirmation and anchoring biases and introduces diagnostic momentum. Serves as an accessible overview for clinicians.)
Coverys Risk Management. (2023, July 26). The impact of cognitive bias on diagnostic error. Coverys Expert Insights. Retrieved from https://www.coverys.com/expert-insights/the-impact-of-cognitive-bias-on-diagnostic-error. (Industry report highlighting how various biases – anchoring, ascertainment, availability, confirmation, framing, etc. – contribute to diagnostic errors. Cites The Joint Commission’s recognition of 100+ biases and gives examples of biases in sentinel events. Also provides malpractice data linking cognitive decision-making issues to a large share of diagnosis-related claims.