A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study looked at more than 108,000 emergency department visits across 104 VA facilities and asked one simple question: does the wording in a triage note change how physicians work up a patient? The answer was unambiguous. When the triage note mentioned congestive heart failure, physicians were one-third less likely to order testing for pulmonary embolism — and took fifteen extra minutes to order it when they did. The actual rate of PE in the two groups was identical. The only thing that changed was the label.

In this episode, Bryan walks through the research and a string of malpractice cases — from a $20 million verdict to a $27 million verdict — where a single line in a triage note quietly steered the entire workup off course. Sarah unpacks the cognitive science behind anchoring bias, dual-process theory, and why the anchor is uniquely dangerous when it is set by someone other than the treating physician before the encounter begins. And Michael brings the frontline hospitalist and emergency-medicine perspective: why every one of us inherits charts with labels already attached, how to recognize when System 1 has accepted a frame you never chose, and the concrete habits — re-triage in your own words, independent chief complaint, deliberate “what else could this be” pause — that any clinician can build into the next shift to keep an incomplete label from becoming a $27 million problem.

Educational purposes only. Not legal advice. Not medical advice.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thecharteddefense.substack.com/subscribe