0
Clinical Investigations: Miscellaneous |

Omission Bias and Decision Making in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine*

Scott K. Aberegg, MD, MPH; Edward F. Haponik, MD; Peter B. Terry, MD, MA
Author and Funding Information

*From The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Correspondence to: Scott K. Aberegg, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 1830 Monument St, Fifth Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205; e-mail: scottaberegg@hotmail.com



Chest. 2005;128(3):1497-1505. doi:10.1378/chest.128.3.1497
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background: Pulmonary and critical care physicians routinely make complex decisions, but little is known about cognitive aspects of this process. Omission bias and status quo bias are well-descibed cognitive biases that can cause lay decision makers to prefer inaction that preserves the status quo even when changing the status quo through action is more likely to lead to the best outcomes. It is unknown if these biases influence trained decision makers such as pulmonologists.

Study objectives: To determine whether omission bias and status quo bias influence the medical decisions of pulmonologists.

Design and interventions: The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted within a cross-sectional survey of pulmonologists’ opinions about the relevance of various factors in pulmonary and critical care decision making. We designed case vignettes that presented patient information with an associated patient management choice. The status quo state and the action/omission distinction were varied in two forms of otherwise identical vignettes. One form of each case vignette pair (A and B) was administered randomly to each prospective respondent during the first mailing of the opinion survey.

Participants: Five hundred pulmonologists selected randomly from the membership of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Measurements and results: There were 125 respondents, including 59 for form A and 66 form B (enrollment rate, 25%). In vignettes involving evaluation of pulmonary embolism and treatment of septic shock, respondents were more likely to choose a suboptimal management strategy when an omission option was present that allowed preservation of the status quo (71% vs 53%, p = 0.048; 50% vs 29%, p = 0.016, respectively). In a vignette involving a hypothetical clinical trial and the decision to prescribe tube feeding, the omission option was not significantly associated with the decision to prescribe tube feeding (54% vs 50%, p = 0.67).

Conclusion: Pulmonary and critical care decisions are susceptible to the influence of omission and status quo bias. Because of the great number of decisions that are made each day involving choices between maintaining or changing the status quo, this finding could have far-reaching implications for patient outcomes, cost-effectiveness, resource utilization, clinical practice variability, and medical errors.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
Guidelines
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543