Decision-making in the ICU: An analysis of the ICU admission decision-making process using a '20 Questions' approach.

P D Gopalan, S Pershad, B J Pillay
{"title":"Decision-making in the ICU: An analysis of the ICU admission decision-making process using a '20 Questions' approach.","authors":"P D Gopalan,&nbsp;S Pershad,&nbsp;B J Pillay","doi":"10.7196/SAJCC.2020.v36i1.398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deciding to admit a patient into the intensive care unit (ICU) is a high-stakes, high-stress, time-sensitive process. Elucidating the complexities of these decisions can contribute to a more efficient, effective process.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore physicians' strategic thought processes in ICU triage decisions and identify important factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Practitioners (N=29) were asked to decide on ICU referrals of two hypothetic cases using a modified '20 Questions' approach. Demographic data, decisions when full information was available, feedback on questions, rating of factors previously identified as important and influence of faith and personality traits were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 735 questions asked, 95.92% were patient related. There were no significant differences in interview variables between the two cases or with regard to presentation order. The overall acceptance rate was 68.96%. Refusals were associated with longer interview times (p=0.014), as were lower ICU bed capacity (p=0.036), advancing age of the practitioner (p=0.040) and a higher faith score (p=0.004). Faith score correlated positively with the number of questions asked (p=0.028). There were no significant correlations with personality trait stanines. When full information was available, acceptances for Case A decreased (p=0.003) but increased for Case B (p=0.026). The net reclassification improvement index was -0.138 (p=0.248). Non-subspecialists were more likely to change their decisions (p=0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limiting information to what is considered vital by using a '20 Questions' approach and allowing the receiving practitioner to create the decision frame may assist with ICU admission decisions. Practitioners should consider the metacognitive elements of their decision-making.</p><p><strong>Contributions of the study: </strong>The study used a novel approach to explore physicians' decision-making process for admitting a patient to the intensive care unit (ICU). Understanding the main factors that influence the decision-making process will allow for streamlining the referral process, more effective selection of patients most likely to benefit from ICU treatment, and prevent inappropriate admissions into the ICU. The findings can also help to improve data capture tools and encourage practitioners to critically reflect on their decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":75194,"journal":{"name":"The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7196/SAJCC.2020.v36i1.398","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJCC.2020.v36i1.398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Deciding to admit a patient into the intensive care unit (ICU) is a high-stakes, high-stress, time-sensitive process. Elucidating the complexities of these decisions can contribute to a more efficient, effective process.

Objectives: To explore physicians' strategic thought processes in ICU triage decisions and identify important factors.

Methods: Practitioners (N=29) were asked to decide on ICU referrals of two hypothetic cases using a modified '20 Questions' approach. Demographic data, decisions when full information was available, feedback on questions, rating of factors previously identified as important and influence of faith and personality traits were explored.

Results: Of the 735 questions asked, 95.92% were patient related. There were no significant differences in interview variables between the two cases or with regard to presentation order. The overall acceptance rate was 68.96%. Refusals were associated with longer interview times (p=0.014), as were lower ICU bed capacity (p=0.036), advancing age of the practitioner (p=0.040) and a higher faith score (p=0.004). Faith score correlated positively with the number of questions asked (p=0.028). There were no significant correlations with personality trait stanines. When full information was available, acceptances for Case A decreased (p=0.003) but increased for Case B (p=0.026). The net reclassification improvement index was -0.138 (p=0.248). Non-subspecialists were more likely to change their decisions (p=0.036).

Conclusion: Limiting information to what is considered vital by using a '20 Questions' approach and allowing the receiving practitioner to create the decision frame may assist with ICU admission decisions. Practitioners should consider the metacognitive elements of their decision-making.

Contributions of the study: The study used a novel approach to explore physicians' decision-making process for admitting a patient to the intensive care unit (ICU). Understanding the main factors that influence the decision-making process will allow for streamlining the referral process, more effective selection of patients most likely to benefit from ICU treatment, and prevent inappropriate admissions into the ICU. The findings can also help to improve data capture tools and encourage practitioners to critically reflect on their decision-making processes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ICU的决策:使用“20个问题”方法分析ICU的入院决策过程。
背景:决定患者是否入住重症监护病房(ICU)是一个高风险、高压力、时间敏感的过程。阐明这些决策的复杂性有助于更高效、更有效的流程。目的:探讨医生在ICU分诊决策中的策略思维过程,并找出重要因素。方法:要求执业医师(N=29)使用改进的“20个问题”方法决定两个假设病例的ICU转诊。研究了人口数据、获得充分信息时的决定、对问题的反馈、对先前确定为重要因素的评级以及信仰和人格特征的影响。结果:735个问题中,95.92%与患者相关。在两种情况下,访谈变量和陈述顺序没有显著差异。总体录取率为68.96%。拒绝与较长的面谈时间(p=0.014)、较低的ICU床位容量(p=0.036)、执业医师年龄的增长(p=0.040)和较高的信念评分(p=0.004)相关。信念得分与提问次数呈正相关(p=0.028)。与人格特质的相关性不显著。当获得全部信息时,病例A的接受率下降(p=0.003),但病例B的接受率增加(p=0.026)。净重分类改善指数为-0.138 (p=0.248)。非专科医生更有可能改变他们的决定(p=0.036)。结论:通过使用“20个问题”方法,将信息限制在认为至关重要的内容,并允许接收医生创建决策框架,可能有助于ICU的入院决定。从业者应该考虑他们决策的元认知因素。本研究的贡献:本研究采用了一种新颖的方法来探讨医生在让患者进入重症监护病房(ICU)时的决策过程。了解影响决策过程的主要因素将有助于简化转诊过程,更有效地选择最有可能从ICU治疗中受益的患者,并防止不适当地进入ICU。研究结果还有助于改进数据采集工具,并鼓励从业人员对其决策过程进行批判性反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Relevance and application of clinical practice guidelines in different settings. Deep medicine … Navigating the intersection of technology, cognition and ethics in the digital age of medicine. The missed art of care? Prevalence and independent predictors of in-hospital stroke among patients who developed acute alteration of consciousness in the medical intensive care unit: A retrospective case-control study. Carbon dioxide levels of ventilated adult critically ill post-operative patients on arrival at the intensive care unit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1