By Working within healthcare constraints requires adaptation. But sometimes the harder question is recognizing when adaptation becomes explanation — and when explanation quietly becomes justification.
We work in systems where ideal diagnostics are not always available.
That is not new.
It is the reality many of us have adapted to.
Decisions are often made with incomplete information. Sometimes, that is simply the best decision available.
But over time, I have started noticing something less obvious — not only in the systems around me, but in how I think within them.
When does necessary adaptation become explanation?
And when does explanation become justification?
One way I have been trying to frame this is through what I call deflection bias:
The tendency to externalize responsibility for clinical uncertainty by attributing decisions primarily to system constraints, potentially reducing internal accountability and limiting reflection.
Not always incorrect.
But not always examined.
A recent case brought this into focus.
A patient presented with a small, hard, non-tender mass over the anterior distal leg. Pain occurred only with strenuous weight-bearing, without systemic symptoms.
Radiographs showed well-defined lytic lesions without cortical break or sequestrum.
Advanced imaging — CT, MRI, nuclear scans — was not available.
The working impression leaned toward a benign tumor, although infection remained part of the differential.
Surgery proceeded.
Intraoperatively, the lesion was consistent with chronic osteomyelitis with abscess formation not evident on plain films.
Cases like this are familiar in our setting.
What I am less certain about is how often we examine the reasoning surrounding them.
Because limitations do not only influence what options are available.
They can also influence how we explain the choices we eventually make.
Sometimes those explanations settle uncertainty a little too quickly.
The literature on diagnostic reasoning repeatedly points to the same uncomfortable intersection: outcomes are shaped both by the environments we work within and the cognitive processes we bring into those environments (Croskerry, 2003; Graber et al., 2005; WHO, 2020).
Both can exist at the same time.
System limitations can be real.
That does not remove the need to examine our own reasoning.
Which makes the question less about blame and more about awareness.
So I am putting this out to colleagues in #HealthXPh — not as a conclusion, but as a point for reflection:
- T1. When do system constraints appropriately guide our decisions, and when do they begin shaping how we justify them?
- T2. How often do we revisit decisions initially attributed to “limitations” and re-examine our clinical reasoning?
- T3. In a constrained system, what does accountable decision-making actually look like in practice?
No clear answers on my end yet.
Just a growing sense that this is worth looking at more closely.
Originally written as a discussion piece for the #HealthXPh Chat, March 21, 2026.
Last modified: July 9, 2026
No comments yet.