Objective

Overconfidence is an important source of medical error. This review analyses experimental studies of confidence in medical diagnosis to identify factors affecting clinicians’ confidence in their diagnoses and how confidence impacts patient care.

Method

A scoping review of medical and psychological literature was conducted. Articles were categorised according to methodology and clinical specialty. Findings were analysed thematically. Our review methodology adheres to the JBI’s Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

Data sources

We searched SCOPUS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Global Health. We then performed citation tracking within these papers’ references to identify additional articles.

Eligibility criteria

Papers were included if they reported quantitative results from an empirical study in which participants reported their confidence or certainty during a diagnostic decision. Studies comprised several medical subdisciplines.

Results

77 articles met the inclusion criteria. Across these articles, confidence was not found to be well-calibrated to true diagnostic accuracy regardless of clinician experience. We organised articles under two main themes: the determinants of confidence and the uses of confidence during the patient’s care pathway. Confidence is found to be affected by several factors, including case complexity, early diagnostic differentials and the healthcare environment. Factors that affect confidence, but not accuracy, demonstrate how the two can become decoupled, resulting in overconfidence/underconfidence. Confidence is found to affect patient testing, medication administration and referral rates, among other clinical actions.

Conclusions

Improving the calibration of confidence should be a priority for medical education and clinical practice (eg, via decision aids). We propose a theoretical model of factors that affect diagnostic confidence/certainty. Such a model can inform future work on how appropriate diagnostic confidence can be prompted and communicated among clinicians.

Statistical process control (SPC) charts provide a natural approach to analysing time series data for healthcare quality improvement (QI) initiatives. A problem arising in practice is that having established baseline control limits, there is no accepted objective and transparent approach to deciding when to establish new control limits for a given chart. We present the Stable Shift Algorithm, a new algorithm to aid analysts by identifying when control limits should be re-established, partitioning a control chart of time series data into distinct time periods. The algorithm aims to achieve this while (1) using only the theory of SPC, familiar to many QI practitioners, (2) avoiding re-establishing limits prematurely and (3) remaining flexible to choice of basic parameters of typical control chart use in QI. This is achieved through the commonly used shift rule of control charts, applied to establish whether shifts warrant new control limits or not. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm in achieving its aims, and a case study demonstrating application of the algorithm to 557 time series of accident and emergency care measures for providers in England and Scotland. Simulation results show that the algorithm avoids premature re-establishment of limits more often than simply re-establishing at every shift rule break. Application of the algorithm to the accident and emergency measures demonstrates this is not achieved at the cost of excessive additional rule breaks that might indicate control limits do not represent the underlying process. The Stable Shift Algorithm offers a potentially highly valuable tool for QI practitioners and researchers undertaking SPC analyses, providing an automated, consistent and rigorous approach facilitating large-scale analyses.

Introduction

The role of quality and safety professionals and leaders in realising the potential and managing the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has not been well defined. We suggest these leaders focus on three areas: using quality, safety and implementation sciences to increase the likelihood of beneficial AI adoption; using AI to enhance and support the methods of quality and safety management; and serving as experts and champions for AI tool use that promotes health and equity (figure 1).

Background and approach

We used 90-day research and development cycles1 to examine AI topics and the role of quality and safety leaders with respect to AI integration, including applying AI tools for quality improvement (QI) use cases,2 the broad application of AI in quality management systems, the implications of AI for patient safety3 and the use of AI...

Trividia recommends that device users who receive an E-5 error code and are experiencing symptoms of high glucose should seek medical care immediately  

Medline updates use instructions for Electronic Homecare Beds due to risk of electrical fires and entrapment.

AirLife is removing Broselow Rainbow Tapes due to incorrectly printed medication dosing information.

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL) – February 6, 2026 – Trividia Health, Inc., announced today that it is initiating a labeling correction which requires a modification of the Owner’s Booklets/System Instructions for Use for all TRUE METRIX, TRUE METRIX AIR, TRUE METRIX GO, and TRUE METRIX PRO Blood Glucose Monit

MedTech/CERENOVUS is removing CEREPAK Detachable Coil Systems due to a higher than expected failure to detach rate

Certain Abbott Diabetes Care Continuous Glucose Monitor sensors may incorrect or lower than actual glucose readings

Certain Abbott Diabetes Care Continuous Glucose Monitor sensors may incorrect or lower than actual glucose readings

FDA is alerting health care providers and lab staff of reports of false positives when using certain Micro Capillary Blood Collection tubes with the LeadCare Testing Systems.

The differential pressure sensor in certain Impella devices may malfunction and cause sensor values to drift.