Literature DB >> 1959374

Ego bias, reverse ego bias, and physicians' prognostic.

R M Poses1, D K McClish, C Bekes, W E Scott, J N Morley.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of "ego bias" on physicians' prognostic judgments. Ego bias is defined as systematic overestimation of the prognosis of one's own patients compared with the expected outcome of a population of similar patients.
DESIGN: A prospective study of an inception cohort of critically ill patients followed until death or discharge from the hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted to either an ICU or an intermediate ICU at a teaching hospital during January and February 1987, excluding patients admitted after coronary artery bypass grafting, for elective dialysis, or transferred to the intermediate ICU from another critical care unit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: House officers' and critical care attending physicians' assessments of the likelihood of inhospital survival for each patient, and their assessments of the overall survival rate of ICU and intermediate ICU patients were compared with each other and with actual survival rates.
RESULTS: The attending physicians' predictions for individual patients were significantly lower than their judgments of the overall survival rate, 79.8% vs. 88.0%, p = .0067, suggesting the presence of a "reverse ego bias." The house officers' predictions for individual patients were significantly higher than their judgments of the overall survival rate, 73.5% vs. 68.9%, p = .018, suggesting the presence of ego bias. The magnitude and directions of these differences varied significantly among the attending physicians (F = 4.3, degrees of freedom = 3, p = .0062 by repeated-measures analysis of variance) and the house officers (F = 6.3, degrees of freedom = 5, p = .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The critical care attending physicians exhibited reverse ego bias that was mainly a function of their optimism about the overall survival rate for critically ill patients. The house officers exhibited ego bias that was mainly a function of their pessimism about the overall survival rate for critically ill patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1959374     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199112000-00016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  16 in total

1.  Decision-making in intensive care--a reply to Sundström.

Authors:  K Hall
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1994-11

2.  Licensing Surrogate Decision-Makers.

Authors:  Philip M Rosoff
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2017-06

3.  Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study.

Authors:  N A Christakis; E B Lamont
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-19

4.  The terminal phase of life as a team-based clinical global judgment: prevalence and associations in an acute geriatric unit.

Authors:  H Frohnhofen; O Hagen; H C Heuer; C Falkenhahn; P Willschrei; H G Nehen
Journal:  Z Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.281

5.  Institutional futility policies are inherently unfair.

Authors:  Philip M Rosoff
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2013-09

6.  Certainty and mortality prediction in critically ill children.

Authors:  J P Marcin; R K Pretzlaff; M M Pollack; K M Patel; U E Ruttimann
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Prescribing propensity: influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs.

Authors:  J E Hux; C M Levinton; C D Naylor
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Extent and determinants of error in physicians' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study.

Authors:  N A Christakis; E B Lamont
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-05

9.  Continuity of care and receipt of aggressive end of life care among women dying of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Megan A Mullins; Julie J Ruterbusch; Philippa Clarke; Shitanshu Uppal; Michele L Cote; Lauren P Wallner
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.304

10.  Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Roy Poses; Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Lott; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Elise Bassin; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.