Deepika Mohan1,2, Baruch Fischhoff3, Coreen Farris4, Galen E Switzer5,6,7,8, Matthew R Rosengart2, Donald M Yealy9, Melissa Saul10, Derek C Angus1, Amber E Barnato6. 1. The CRISMA (Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (DM, MRR, DCA). 2. Department ofSurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (DM, MRR) 3. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (BF) 4. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (CF) 5. VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (GES) 6. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (GES, AEB) 7. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (GES) 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (GES) 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (DMY) 10. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (MS)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting the use of vignettes to study physician decision making comes primarily from the study of low-risk decisions and the demonstration of good agreement at the group level between vignettes and actual practice. The validity of using vignettes to predict decision making in more complex, high-risk contexts and at the individual level remains unknown. METHODS: We had previously developed a vignette-based instrument to study physician decision making in trauma triage. Here, we measured the retest reliability, internal consistency, known-groups performance, and criterion validity of the instrument. Thirty-two emergency physicians, recruited at a national academic meeting, participated in reliability testing. Twenty-eight trauma surgeons, recruited using personal contacts, participated in known-groups testing. Twenty-eight emergency physicians, recruited from physicians working at hospitals for which we had access to medical records, participated in criterion validity testing. We measured rates of undertriage (the proportion of severely injured patients not transferred to trauma centers) and overtriage (the proportion of patients transferred with minor injuries) on the instrument. For physicians participating in criterion validity testing, we compared rates of triage on the instrument with rates in practice, based on chart review. RESULTS: Physicians made similar transfer decisions for cases (κ = 0.42, P < 0.01) on 2 administrations of the instrument. Responses were internally consistent (Kuder-Richardson, 0.71-0.91). Surgeons had lower rates of undertriage than emergency physicians (13% v. 70%, P < 0.01). No correlation existed between individual rates of under- or overtriage on the vignettes and in practice (r = -0.17, P = 0.4; r = -0.03, P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The instrument developed to assess trauma triage decision making performed reliably and detected known group differences. However, it did not predict individual physician performance.
BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting the use of vignettes to study physician decision making comes primarily from the study of low-risk decisions and the demonstration of good agreement at the group level between vignettes and actual practice. The validity of using vignettes to predict decision making in more complex, high-risk contexts and at the individual level remains unknown. METHODS: We had previously developed a vignette-based instrument to study physician decision making in trauma triage. Here, we measured the retest reliability, internal consistency, known-groups performance, and criterion validity of the instrument. Thirty-two emergency physicians, recruited at a national academic meeting, participated in reliability testing. Twenty-eight trauma surgeons, recruited using personal contacts, participated in known-groups testing. Twenty-eight emergency physicians, recruited from physicians working at hospitals for which we had access to medical records, participated in criterion validity testing. We measured rates of undertriage (the proportion of severely injured patients not transferred to trauma centers) and overtriage (the proportion of patients transferred with minor injuries) on the instrument. For physicians participating in criterion validity testing, we compared rates of triage on the instrument with rates in practice, based on chart review. RESULTS: Physicians made similar transfer decisions for cases (κ = 0.42, P < 0.01) on 2 administrations of the instrument. Responses were internally consistent (Kuder-Richardson, 0.71-0.91). Surgeons had lower rates of undertriage than emergency physicians (13% v. 70%, P < 0.01). No correlation existed between individual rates of under- or overtriage on the vignettes and in practice (r = -0.17, P = 0.4; r = -0.03, P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The instrument developed to assess trauma triage decision making performed reliably and detected known group differences. However, it did not predict individual physician performance.
Authors: Aristithes G Doumouras; Barbara Haas; David Gomez; Charles de Mestral; Donald M Boyes; Laurie J Morrison; Alan M Craig; Avery B Nathens Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Bruce E Landon; Nancy L Keating; Michael L Barnett; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Sudeshna Paul; A James O'Malley; Thomas Keegan; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sharon Farra; Eric Hodgson; Elaine T Miller; Nathan Timm; Whittney Brady; Matt Gneuhs; Jun Ying; Jackie Hausfeld; Emily Cosgrove; Ashley Simon; Michael Bottomley Journal: Disaster Med Public Health Prep Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 1.385
Authors: Deepika Mohan; Derek C Angus; Daniel Ricketts; Coreen Farris; Baruch Fischhoff; Matthew R Rosengart; Donald M Yealy; Amber E Barnato Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Deepika Mohan; Matthew R Rosengart; Baruch Fischhoff; Derek C Angus; David J Wallace; Coreen Farris; Donald M Yealy; Amber E Barnato Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2017-12-28
Authors: J Staal; J Alsma; S Mamede; A P J Olson; G Prins-van Gilst; S E Geerlings; M Plesac; M A Sundberg; M A Frens; H G Schmidt; W W Van den Broek; L Zwaan Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Jin Peng; Krista Wheeler; Junxin Shi; Jonathan Ira Groner; Kathryn Jo Haley; Huiyun Xiang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joao Gabriel Rosa Ramos; Beatriz Perondi; Roger Daglius Dias; Leandro Costa Miranda; Claudio Cohen; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro Carvalho; Irineu Tadeu Velasco; Daniel Neves Forte Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 9.097