How can I assess and mitigate risks associated with human error in clinical decision-making?

Assessing and mitigating risks associated with human error in clinical decision-making requires a multifaceted approach that integrates systematic evaluation, awareness of cognitive biases, and structured interventions.

To assess risks, implement regular audits and reflective practice sessions that identify patterns of error and decision-making inconsistencies, supported by data collection on adverse events and near misses ¹. Incorporate tools such as checklists and decision support systems to reduce variability and noise in clinical judgments, as these have been shown to standardize processes and minimize human error (Peringa et al., 2025).

Mitigation strategies should focus on enhancing clinical reasoning through training that raises awareness of common cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, anchoring) and promotes metacognition, enabling clinicians to recognize and correct their own errors (Peringa et al., 2025). Embedding medicines optimisation principles, as outlined in NICE NG5, ensures safer prescribing practices by encouraging thorough medication reviews and patient involvement, which reduces errors related to drug therapy ¹.

Additionally, fostering a culture of open communication and non-punitive reporting within the practice encourages early identification and management of errors, aligning with NICE recommendations for patient safety and quality improvement ¹. Recent evidence highlights that noise—random variability in human judgment—can be as detrimental as bias, suggesting that standardizing decision pathways and using algorithms where appropriate can further reduce error rates (Peringa et al., 2025).

In summary, a combined approach of systematic risk assessment, cognitive bias training, structured decision support, medicines optimisation, and a supportive safety culture effectively addresses human error in clinical decision-making ¹; (Peringa et al., 2025).