Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Editorial Policies
    • Open Access
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Editorial Policies
    • Open Access
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
American Academy of Pediatrics
Bending the Value Curve

Anchoring Bias as a Limiting Factor in High-Value Care: A Case of Fever of Unknown Origin in a Hospitalized Child

Natalia Festa, K. T. Park and Hayden Schwenk
Hospital Pediatrics November 2016, 6 (11) 699-701; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2016-0027
Natalia Festa
aStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. T. Park
aStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
bLucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Palo Alto, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hayden Schwenk
aStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and
bLucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Palo Alto, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

A previously healthy 4-year-old girl with a 3-week history of subjective weight loss, diffuse abdominal pain, and fever presented to the emergency department for evaluation. Her examination was remarkable for right-sided abdominal tenderness. Initial laboratory results were significant for microcytic anemia with hemoglobin of 8.8 g/dL, thrombocytosis to 800 K/µL, leukocytosis to 19.8 K/µL (91% neutrophils), and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate to 128 mm/h. An ultrasound demonstrated a normal appendix with a small amount of nonspecific free fluid in the right lower quadrant, the latter of which prompted an abdominal MRI. Although there was no evidence of appendicitis, the MRI was incidentally notable for numerous punctate T2 hyperintensities of the liver, of unclear significance. The patient was admitted for further evaluation, at which time the gastroenterology and infectious disease services were consulted. Gastroenterology recommended a fecal calprotectin and perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies to evaluate for the possibility of inflammatory bowel disease. On the basis of a recent kitten exposure, the infectious disease service recommended Bartonella serologies and polymerase chain reaction, echocardiogram, ophthalmologic examination, and empirical azithromycin for suspected diagnosis of visceral cat scratch disease (CSD).

All infectious studies were negative, casting doubt on the initial diagnosis. Nonetheless, in the absence of findings to support an alternative explanatory model, the primary team adhered to the leading hypothesis. Such anchoring was furthered by a selection of evidence that was most consistent with preexisting hypotheses, namely that antibiotics have not been found to significantly affect cure rate or time-to-cure in CSD, and that serologies may remain negative in infected patients.1 After a lack of clinical response to azithromycin, rifampin was added.2 A liver biopsy was obtained for clinical correlation of the hepatic lesions seen on MRI; however, these lesions were not visualized on ultrasound, and the tissue was without abnormalities. On hospital day 13, the initial quantitative fecal calprotectin resulted as elevated (393 μg/g), suggestive of intestinal mucosal inflammation.3 Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were performed, and pathology was diagnostic of Crohn disease.

The decision to pursue an MRI as a result of nonspecific ultrasound findings became a pivotal juncture in the quality of care delivered. Risk-stratification algorithms have been developed to help support or exclude the clinical diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis. Although the best-studied clinical scoring systems, the Alvarado and pediatric appendicitis score, provide a useful clinical adjunct,4,5 neither has adequate predictive value to be used as the sole diagnostic standard.6 On the basis of these scores, the decision to proceed with ultrasound was justifiable.7 However, absent additional ultrasonographic findings to support a diagnosis of appendicitis, there was no indication to proceed with MRI on the basis of the finding of free fluid alone.8

On MRI, incidental discovery of punctate T2 hyperintensities of the liver prompted a consultation of the infectious disease and gastroenterology services. For a liver incidentaloma of <0.5 cm in patients with low risk of malignancy, the American College of Radiology recommends no further follow-up.9 As a result of premature closure on the diagnosis of visceral CSD, the consulting and primary services each developed explanatory models that attributed the MRI findings to microabscess formation. Because tissue diagnosis is considered the diagnostic gold standard for visceral CSD, an invasive diagnostic procedure was required to dispel a then-ingrained anchoring bias.10 The ensuing decision to pursue liver biopsy serves as the hallmark of unnecessary care, and the culmination of a series of cumulative cognitive errors.

This case underscores the potential of incidental findings to mitigate high-value care by reinforcing anchoring bias in the setting of premature diagnostic closure. Given its potential to result in delayed or missed diagnoses, cognitive error has been identified as an important source of unnecessary costs to patients and the health care system.11 Such errors motivate the provision of medical care that is both unnecessary and potentially harmful.12 These costs are evidenced by studies demonstrating delayed or missed diagnosis in upward of 10% of hospital admissions.13 In many such cases, cognitive error is identified as a principal a source of preventable death or permanent disability.12,14,15

The extent to which cognitive errors are directly attributable to the physician remains poorly characterized.16 Nonetheless, attention to misleading or irrelevant aspects of the history and physical may prime physicians to prematurely adhere to an inaccurate explanatory model of illness.17,18 The cognitive error in the described case may have been mitigated by emerging strategies of behavioral modification, namely metacognition.19 Metacognition is defined as the practice of analyzing and understanding one’s own reasoning.14 This practice requires that the physician evaluate his or her own approach to the diagnosis to neutralize cognitive bias.14 Notably, metacognition requires a foundational understanding of the divisions and drivers of cognitive error, concepts that have been established as readily educable at the early stages of medical training.19,20

In summary, this case highlights the potential of nonindicated diagnostic studies to yield incidental findings, and thereby generate substrate for cognitive error. The initial decision to evaluate for appendicitis by way of abdominal ultrasound was indicated and supported by the evidence. Conversely, the ensuing decision to proceed with an MRI resulted in incidental findings that supported cognitive error in the absence of alternative information. Indeed, adherence to an erroneous explanatory model, motivated by confounding elements of the patient history and imaging studies, hastened premature closure on the misdiagnosis of CSD. This early misdiagnosis facilitated pronounced anchoring bias and precipitated a prolonged and costly hospitalization, characterized by the provision of unneeded care.

Footnotes

  • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

  • FUNDING: No external funding.

  • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Prutsky G,
    2. Domecq JP,
    3. Mori L,
    4. et al
    . Treatment outcomes of human bartonellosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2013;17(10):e811–e819
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Arisoy ES,
    2. Correa AG,
    3. Wagner ML,
    4. Kaplan SL
    . Hepatosplenic cat-scratch disease in children: selected clinical features and treatment. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28(4):778–784
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Yang Z,
    2. Clark N,
    3. Park KT
    . Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of measuring fecal calprotectin in diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in adults and children. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(2):253–262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Alvarado A
    . A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15(5):557–564
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Samuel M,
    2. Hosie G,
    3. Holmes K
    . Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37(6):882–886
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Pogorelić Z,
    2. Rak S,
    3. Mrklić I,
    4. Jurić I
    . Prospective validation of Alvarado score and Pediatric Appendicitis Score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2015;31(3):164–168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Mandeville K,
    2. Pottker T,
    3. Bulloch B,
    4. Liu J
    . Using appendicitis scores in the pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2011;29(9):972–977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Sivit CJ
    . Significance of peritoneal fluid identified by ultrasonographic examination in children with acute abdominal pain. J Ultrasound Med. 1993;12(12):743–746
    OpenUrlAbstract
  9. ↵
    1. Berland LL,
    2. Silverman SG,
    3. Gore RM,
    4. et al
    . Managing Incidental Findings on Abdominal CT: White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. Available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144010003303. Accessed April 9, 2016
  10. ↵
    1. Vermeulen MJ,
    2. Verbakel H,
    3. Notermans DW,
    4. Reimerink JH,
    5. Peeters MF
    . Evaluation of sensitivity, specificity and cross-reactivity in Bartonella henselae serology. J Med Microbiol. 2010;59(pt 6):743–745
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Scott IA
    . Errors in clinical reasoning: causes and remedial strategies. BMJ. 2009;338:b1860
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Newman-Toker DE,
    2. Pronovost PJ
    . Diagnostic errors—the next frontier for patient safety. JAMA. 2009;301(10):1060–1062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Neale G,
    2. Woloshynowych M,
    3. Vincent C
    . Exploring the causes of adverse events in NHS hospital practice. J R Soc Med. 2001;94(7):322–330
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Croskerry P
    . The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–780
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Aberegg SK,
    2. Arkes H,
    3. Terry PB
    . Failure to adopt beneficial therapies caused by bias in medical evidence evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):575–582
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Thomas EJ,
    2. Studdert DM,
    3. Burstin HR,
    4. et al
    . Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care. 2000;38(3):261–271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Arzy S,
    2. Brezis M,
    3. Khoury S,
    4. Simon SR,
    5. Ben-Hur T
    . Misleading one detail: a preventable mode of diagnostic error? J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(5):804–806
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Sibbald M,
    2. Cavalcanti RB
    . The biasing effect of clinical history on physical examination diagnostic accuracy. Med Educ. 2011;45(8):827–834
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Mamede S,
    2. van Gog T,
    3. van den Berge K,
    4. et al
    . Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198–1203
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Croskerry P
    . Cognitive forcing strategies in emergency medicine. Emerg Med J. 2002;19(suppl 1):A9
    OpenUrl
  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

Advertising Disclaimer »

In this issue

Hospital Pediatrics: 6 (11)
Hospital Pediatrics
Vol. 6, Issue 11
1 Nov 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS
PreviousNext
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Anchoring Bias as a Limiting Factor in High-Value Care: A Case of Fever of Unknown Origin in a Hospitalized Child
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Log in
You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Anchoring Bias as a Limiting Factor in High-Value Care: A Case of Fever of Unknown Origin in a Hospitalized Child
Natalia Festa, K. T. Park, Hayden Schwenk
Hospital Pediatrics Nov 2016, 6 (11) 699-701; DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0027

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Anchoring Bias as a Limiting Factor in High-Value Care: A Case of Fever of Unknown Origin in a Hospitalized Child
Natalia Festa, K. T. Park, Hayden Schwenk
Hospital Pediatrics Nov 2016, 6 (11) 699-701; DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0027
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts
  • Table of Contents

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Cost of Diagnostic Delay and Error
  • Do I Need Proof of the Culprit? Decreasing Respiratory Viral Testing in Critically Ill Patients
  • Surviving Sepsis Screening: The Unintended Consequences of Continuous Surveillance
Show more Bending the Value Curve

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Infectious Disease
    • Infectious Disease
  • Journal Info
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies
  • Overview
  • Licensing Information
  • Authors/Reviewers
  • Author Guidelines
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Submit My Manuscript
  • Open Access
  • Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions
  • Usage Stats
  • Support
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Resources
  • Media Kit
  • About
  • International Access
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • RSS Feeds
  • shopAAP
  • AAP.org
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
  • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics