Literature DB >> 8691282

The inability of physicians to predict the outcome of in-hospital resuscitation.

M H Ebell1, G R Bergus, L Warbasse, R Bloomer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the accuracy, reliability, and discrimination of physicians' predictions of the outcome of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), using a large series of detailed clinical vignettes of patients with known outcomes.
DESIGN: Faculty and resident physicians at three university-affiliated generalist training programs were given one-page summaries of admission data for patients who later underwent in-hospital CPR. These summaries included all pre-arrest variables known to be related to the outcome of CPR. Physicians were asked to estimate the probability that patients would survive the resuscitation long enough to be stabilized, and the probability of survival to discharge.
SETTING: Patient cases were derived from a consecutive series of patients undergoing CPR at two urban teaching hospitals in Detroit, Michigan. PARTICIPANTS: Faculty members and residents at a university-based department of internal medicine and two university-based departments of family medicine were surveyed.
INTERVENTIONS: Accuracy of the physician predictions was assessed by comparing the mean predicted probability of survival with the percentage of patients who actually survived. The reliability of probability estimates of survival was evaluated by assessing the numerical proximity of the estimates to the actual outcome of the resuscitative effort. The ability to discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors was measured by comparing the mean predicted probability of survival for those patients who survived CPR with that for those who did not, and by stratifying physician predictions and measuring the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS. Physicians (n = 51) made a total of 713 estimates, and showed poor accuracy, reliability, and discrimination in predicting the outcome of in-hospital CPR. The mean predicted probability of survival to discharge did not differ between patients who actually survived to discharge and those who did not (29.5% vs 26.4%, z = 0.35, p = .73). Similarly, the mean predicted probabilities of surviving resuscitation were the same for patients who actually survived long enough to be stabilized and those who did not (37.8% vs 39.9%, z = 0.55, p = .58). Accounting for type of physician and institution by analysis of variance did not change this finding. The area under the ROC curve for the prediction of arrest survival was 0.476, which is not significantly different from 0.5, and is consistent with an ability to discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors that is no better than random choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians were no better at identifying patients who would survive resuscitation than would be expected by chance alone. Further work is needed to establish which variables are used by physicians in the decision-making process, and to design educational interventions that will make physicians more accurate prognosticators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8691282     DOI: 10.1007/bf02603480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  22 in total

1.  The measurement of performance in probabilistic diagnosis. II. Trustworthiness of the exact values of the diagnostic probabilities.

Authors:  J Hilden; J D Habbema; B Bjerregaard
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 2.176

2.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Simulated patients in general practice: a different look at the consultation.

Authors:  J J Rethans; C P van Boven
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-03-28

4.  Predicting outcome of inhospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  E A Rozenbaum; L Shenkman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the elderly.

Authors:  D J Murphy; A M Murray; B E Robinson; E W Campion
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1989-08-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Influence of pseudodiagnostic information on the evaluation of ischemic heart disease.

Authors:  L A Green; J F Yates
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 5.721

7.  Prearrest predictors of survival following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  M H Ebell
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 0.493

8.  Antibiotic use in otitis media: patient simulations as an aid to audit.

Authors:  D M Chaput de Saintonge; N R Hathaway
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1981-10-03

9.  Criterion validity of responses to patient vignettes: an analysis based on management of female urinary incontinence.

Authors:  H Sandvik
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 1.756

10.  Pre-arrest morbidity and other correlates of survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest.

Authors:  A L George; B P Folk; P L Crecelius; W B Campbell
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 4.965

View more
  8 in total

1.  Survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  M H Ebell; L A Becker; H C Barry; M Hagen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Predicting Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Retrospective US Validation of the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation Score.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Rubins; Spencer D Kinzie; David M Rubins
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Inability of providers to predict unplanned readmissions.

Authors:  Nazima Allaudeen; Jeffrey L Schnipper; E John Orav; Robert M Wachter; Arpana R Vidyarthi
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-03-12       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Partially revived pig organs could force a rethink of critical-care processes.

Authors:  Brendan Parent
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 69.504

Review 5.  Determining resuscitation preferences of elderly inpatients: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Christopher Frank; Daren K Heyland; Benjamin Chen; Donald Farquhar; Kathryn Myers; Ken Iwaasa
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-10-14       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Clinicians' predictions of patient response to psychotropic medications.

Authors:  Pierre Schulz; Patricia Berney
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.986

7.  Physician-estimated disease severity in patients with chronic heart or lung disease: a cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke; Kathleen W Wyrwich; William M Tierney; Ajit N Babu; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-13       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Improved Risk Prediction Following Surgery Using Machine Learning Algorithms.

Authors:  Anne P Ehlers; Senjuti Basu Roy; Sara Khor; Prathyusha Mandagani; Moushumi Maria; Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho; David R Flum
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2017-04-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.