ArticleBMC family practice2020
Regret among primary care physicians: a survey of diagnostic decisions.
Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward Constructive Change After Making a Medical Error: Recovery From Situations of Error Theory as a Psychosocial Model for Clinician Recovery.Journal of patient safety · 2022Pooled it
- How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of Prior Diagnosis on Second Opinions and Pathologist Viewing Behaviors: Results from a Randomized Trial in Breast Pathology.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Trial
- Of Hoofbeats, Horses, and Zebras: A "Conversation" with Drs. William Dock, Theodore Woodward, and Alvan Feinstein.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- The burden of choice: decision regret in subspecialty selection among young and middle-aged doctors.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Medical decision-making under risk and uncertainty: Anesthetists' decision to proceed with surgery.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- 'Shades of grey': a focus group study on diagnostic uncertainty among general practitioners using point-of-care ultrasound.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Mental health burden among healthcare workers in Kintampo North Municipal Hospital: A descriptive analysis of stress, depression, and anxiety based on Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Article
- Applicability and Validity of Second Victim Assessment Instruments among General Practitioners and Healthcare Assistants (SEVID-IX Study).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Blackbox error management: how do practices deal with critical incidents in everyday practice? A qualitative interview study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Regret and Therapeutic Decisions in Multiple Sclerosis Care: Literature Review and Research Protocol.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExperienced and anticipated regret influence physicians' decision-making. In medicine, diagnostic decisions and diagnostic errors can have a severe impact on both patients and physicians. Little empirical research exists on regret experienced by physicians when they make diagnostic decisions in primary care that later prove inappropriate or incorrect. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of regret following diagnostic decisions in primary care.
methodsIn this qualitative study, we used an online questionnaire on a sample of German primary care physicians. We asked participants to report on cases in which the final diagnosis differed from their original opinion, and in which treatment was at the very least delayed, possibly resulting in harm to the patient. We asked about original and final diagnoses, illness trajectories, and the reactions of other physicians, patients and relatives. We used thematic analysis to assess the data, supported by MAXQDA 11 and Microsoft Excel 2016.
results29 GPs described one case each (14 female/15 male patients, aged 1.5-80 years, response rate < 1%). In 26 of 29 cases, the final diagnosis was more serious than the original diagnosis. In two cases, the diagnoses were equally serious, and in one case less serious. Clinical trajectories and the reactions of patients and relatives differed widely. Although only one third of cases involved preventable harm to patients, the vast majority (27 of 29) of physicians expressed deep feelings of regret.
conclusionEven if harm to patients is unavoidable, regret following diagnostic decisions can be devastating for clinicians, making them 'second victims'. Procedures and tools are needed to analyse cases involving undesirable diagnostic events, so that 'true' diagnostic errors, in which harm could have been prevented, can be distinguished from others. Further studies should also explore how physicians can be supported in dealing with such events in order to prevent them from practicing defensive medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.