↓ Skip to main content

A portable mnemonic to facilitate checking for cognitive errors

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A portable mnemonic to facilitate checking for cognitive errors
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2249-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keng Sheng Chew, Jeroen van Merriënboer, Steven J. Durning

Abstract

Although a clinician may have the intention of carrying out strategies to reduce cognitive errors, this intention may not be realized especially under heavy workload situations or following a period of interruptions. Implementing strategies to reduce cognitive errors in clinical setting may be facilitated by a portable mnemonic in the form of a checklist. A 2-stage approach using both qualitative and quantitative methods was used in the development and evaluation of a mnemonic checklist. In the development stage, a focus-driven literature search and a face-to-face discussion with a content expert in cognitive errors were carried out. Categories of cognitive errors addressed and represented in the checklist were identified. In the judgment stage, the face and content validity of the categories of cognitive errors represented in the checklist were determined. This was accomplished through coding responses of a panel of experts in cognitive errors. From the development stage, a preliminary version of the checklist in the form of four questions represented by four specific letters was developed. The letter 'T' in the TWED checklist stands for 'Threat' (i.e., 'is there any life or limb threat that I need to rule out in this patient?'), 'W' for 'Wrong/What else' (i.e., 'What if I am wrong? What else could it be?'), 'E' for 'evidences' (i.e., 'Do I have sufficient evidences to support or exclude this diagnosis?'), and 'D' for 'dispositional factors' (i.e., 'is there any dispositional factor that influence my decision'). In the judgment stage, the content validity of most categories of cognitive errors addressed in the checklist was rated highly in terms of their relevance and representativeness (with modified kappa values ranging from 0.65 to 1.0). Based on the coding of responses from seven experts, this checklist was shown to be sufficiently comprehensive to activate the implementation intention of checking cognitive errors. The TWED checklist is a portable mnemonic checklist that can be used to activate implementation intentions for checking cognitive errors in clinical settings. While its mnemonic structure eases recall, its brevity makes it portable for quick application in every clinical case until it becomes habitual in daily clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 36%
Psychology 5 20%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Linguistics 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,711,857
of 23,978,545 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,219
of 4,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,529
of 324,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#18
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,545 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.