Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference
- PMID: 38522052
- DOI: 10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4
Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference
Abstract
Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that humans frequently diverge from rational decision-making processes due to the pervasive influence of cognitive biases. This paper conducts an examination of the impact of cognitive biases on high-stakes decision-making within the context of the joint pediatric cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery conference, offering practical recommendations for mitigating their effects. Recognized biases such as confirmation bias, availability bias, outcome bias, overconfidence bias, sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, planning fallacy, authority bias, and illusion of agreement are analyzed concerning their specific implications within this conference setting. To counteract these biases and enhance the quality of decision-making, practical strategies are proposed, including the implementation of a no-interruption policy until all data is reviewed, leaders refraining from immediate input, requiring participants to formulate independent judgments prior to sharing recommendations, explicit probability estimations grounded in base rates, seeking external opinions, and promoting an environment that encourages dissenting perspectives.
Keywords: Cognitive bias; Decision-making; Judgment; Surgery conference.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest/ competing interests to disclose. Ethical Approval: This is a review article with no human subjects and thus ethical approval was not required.
Similar articles
-
Prospective Analysis of Decision Making During Joint Cardiology Cardiothoracic Conference in Treatment of 107 Consecutive Children with Congenital Heart Disease.Pediatr Cardiol. 2018 Oct;39(7):1330-1338. doi: 10.1007/s00246-018-1899-3. Epub 2018 May 12. Pediatr Cardiol. 2018. PMID: 29754203
-
Mapping cognitive biases in multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making for cancer care in Scotland: a cognitive ethnography study protocol.BMJ Open. 2024 Aug 24;14(8):e086775. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086775. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 39181560 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the Presence of Cognitive Biases in Health Care Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Formulary Decision Makers.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Nov;24(11):1173-1183. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.11.1173. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018. PMID: 30362919 Free PMC article.
-
Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making in prehospital critical care; a scoping review.Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 3;33(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13049-025-01415-1. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2025. PMID: 40462148 Free PMC article.
-
Decision Making in Paediatric Cardiology. Are We Prone to Heuristics, Biases and Traps?Pediatr Cardiol. 2018 Jan;39(1):160-167. doi: 10.1007/s00246-017-1742-2. Epub 2017 Oct 4. Pediatr Cardiol. 2018. PMID: 28980097 Review.
Cited by
-
Quantifying random variability in decision-making in pediatric cardiac surgery.JTCVS Open. 2025 Mar 5;25:382-392. doi: 10.1016/j.xjon.2025.02.014. eCollection 2025 Jun. JTCVS Open. 2025. PMID: 40631000 Free PMC article.
-
Cognitive biases in Mohs micrographic surgery.Skin Health Dis. 2024 Dec 1;4(6):e466. doi: 10.1002/ski2.466. eCollection 2024 Dec. Skin Health Dis. 2024. PMID: 39624741 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Convergent parallel mixed-methods study to understand the impact of decision-making for congenital cardiac surgery patients at a tertiary paediatric hospital: a study protocol.BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 12;15(8):e099080. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099080. BMJ Open. 2025. PMID: 40803723 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan
-
- Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232 - DOI
-
- Brenner LA, Koehler DJ, Liberman V, Tversky A (1996) Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: a critical examination. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:212–219 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical