Background Hindsight bias and outcome bias may play an important role in retrospective law of errors in Emergency Medicine and may affect judgement. In addition, differences in sex and medical history may affect treatment decisions (implicit bias). Aims First, to assess if and to what extent knowledge of an outcome may affect the ability of Emergency Physicians and physicians with experience in disciplinary law to determine the quality of care given. Secondly, to investigate whether a medical history with nonspecific/functional/somatoform complaints and sex differences affect clinical decision making in Emergency Physicians. Study design and analyses A web-based cross-sectional survey using vignettes with six clinical scenarios (four vignettes for outcome/hindsight bias, four vignettes for implicit bias). The survey was sent to all Emergency Physicians and residents in training in the Netherlands. Four scenarios were also sent to physicians with experience in disciplinary law. In four vignettes, participants received a scenario without an outcome, or with a positive or negative outcome. They were asked to rate the quality of care provided as sufficient or insufficient and, in more detail, poor/below average/average/good/outstanding and how likely they thought it would be that the patient would have had a negative outcome (in percent). In the other two vignettes, participants received one vignette describing a scenario of a patient presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain and one vignette describing a scenario with chest pain. The sex and medical history differed among the participants (e.g. male/female, nonspecific medical history/somatic medical history). Participants were asked whether they would prescribe pain medication, and whether they would do diagnostic imaging. Importance and impact This research may help to understand the impact of knowing the outcome in retrospective laws in Dutch Emergency Physicians and physicians with experience in disciplinary law. If outcome and hindsight bias are present, retrospective judgement may need a different approach in medicine, i.e. blinding judges for the outcome, to prevent wrong justice and adverse effect on clinicians well-being. Also, if implicit bias in sex and medical history is present, a training programme is needed to reduce certain bias and to improve equality in the provided care.
Age range
18 Years – 100 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Quality of care
Timeframe: Throughout the study, 1day
Diagnostic imaging
Timeframe: Throughout the study, 1day