Literature DB >> 27192347

Impact of a Risk Calculator on Risk Perception and Surgical Decision Making: A Randomized Trial.

Greg D Sacks1, Aaron J Dawes, Susan L Ettner, Robert H Brook, Craig R Fox, Marcia M Russell, Clifford Y Ko, Melinda Maggard-Gibbons.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether exposure to data from a risk calculator influences surgeons' assessments of risk and in turn, their decisions to operate.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how risk calculators inform clinical judgment and decision-making.
METHODS: We asked a national sample of surgeons to assess the risks (probability of serious complications or death) and benefits (recovery) of operative and nonoperative management and to rate their likelihood of recommending an operation (5-point scale) for 4 detailed clinical vignettes wherein the best treatment strategy was uncertain. Surgeons were randomized to the clinical vignettes alone (control group; n = 384) or supplemented by data from a risk calculator (risk calculator group; n = 395). We compared surgeons' judgments and decisions between the groups.
RESULTS: Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator judged levels of operative risk that more closely approximated the risk calculator value (RCV) compared with surgeons in the control group [mesenteric ischemia: 43.7% vs 64.6%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 25%); gastrointestinal bleed: 47.7% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 38%); small bowel obstruction: 13.6% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 14%); appendicitis: 13.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 5%)]. Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator also varied less in their assessment of operative risk (standard deviations: mesenteric ischemia 20.2% vs 23.2%, P = 0.01; gastrointestinal bleed 17.4% vs 24.1%, P < 0.001; small bowel obstruction 10.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001; appendicitis 15.2% vs 21.8%, P < 0.001). However, averaged across the 4 vignettes, the 2 groups did not differ in their reported likelihood of recommending an operation (mean 3.7 vs 3.7, P = 0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to risk calculator data leads to less varied and more accurate judgments of operative risk among surgeons, and thus may help inform discussions of treatment options between surgeons and patients. Interestingly, it did not alter their reported likelihood of recommending an operation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27192347     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001750

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  14 in total

1.  Validation of an online risk calculator for the prediction of anastomotic leak after colon cancer surgery and preliminary exploration of artificial intelligence-based analytics.

Authors:  T Sammour; L Cohen; A I Karunatillake; M Lewis; M J Lawrence; A Hunter; J W Moore; M L Thomas
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  Report of a Quality Improvement Program for Reducing Postoperative Complications by Using a Surgical Risk Calculator in a Cohort of General Surgery Patients.

Authors:  Elisa M Müller; Eva Herrmann; Thomas Schmandra; Thomas F Weigel; Ernst Hanisch; Alexander Buia
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Surgeons' risk perception in ASD surgery: The value of objective risk assessment on decision making and patient counselling.

Authors:  Ferran Pellisé; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Susana Núñez-Pereira; Sleiman Haddad; Justin S Smith; Michael P Kelly; Ahmet Alanay; Christopher Shaffrey; Javier Pizones; Çaglar Yilgor; Ibrahim Obeid; Douglas Burton; Frank Kleinstück; Tamas Fekete; Shay Bess; Munish Gupta; Markus Loibl; Eric O Klineberg; Francisco J Sánchez Pérez-Grueso; Miquel Serra-Burriel; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.721

4.  The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Andrew S Miller; Kathryn Boyce; Benjamin Box; Matthew D Clarke; Sarah E Duff; Niamh M Foley; Richard J Guy; Lisa H Massey; George Ramsay; Dominic A J Slade; James A Stephenson; Phil J Tozer; Danette Wright
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 3.917

Review 5.  Less Is More: A Narrative Review of Deciding When Surgical Intervention Should Be Withheld.

Authors:  Annabel Stout; Jack Hamer; Tahlia Sharples; Farshad Tahmasebi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-03-18

6.  Barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' uptake of decision aids for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Samantha Bunzli; Elizabeth Nelson; Anthony Scott; Simon French; Peter Choong; Michelle Dowsey
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-12       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Rethinking our definition of operative success: predicting early mortality after emergency general surgery colon resection.

Authors:  Michael P DeWane; Kimberly A Davis; Kevin M Schuster; Adrian A Maung; Robert D Becher
Journal:  Trauma Surg Acute Care Open       Date:  2019-05-15

8.  Inner Deliberations of Surgeons Treating Critically-ill Emergency General Surgery Patients: A Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  Shreyus S Kulkarni; Alexandra Briggs; Olivia A Sacks; Matthew R Rosengart; Douglas B White; Amber E Barnato; Andrew B Peitzman; Deepika Mohan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 13.787

9.  Modified Colon Leakage Score to Predict Anastomotic Leakage in Patients Who Underwent Left-Sided Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Seung Up Yang; Eun Jung Park; Seung Hyuk Baik; Kang Young Lee; Jeonghyun Kang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Variability in clinicians' understanding and reported methods of identifying high-risk surgical patients: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Amanda Selwood; Brette Blakely; Siva Senthuran; Paul Lane; John North; Robyn Clay-Williams
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.