Dataset Information

The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making.

ABSTRACT: Medical decision making may be influenced by contextual factors. We evaluated whether pathologists are influenced by disease severity of recently observed cases.Pathologists independently interpreted 60 breast biopsy specimens (one slide per case; 240 total cases in the study) in a prospective randomized observational study. Pathologists interpreted the same cases in 2 phases, separated by a washout period of >6 months. Participants were not informed that the cases were identical in each phase, and the sequence was reordered randomly for each pathologist and between phases. A consensus reference diagnosis was established for each case by 3 experienced breast pathologists. Ordered logit models examined the effect the pathologists' diagnoses on the preceding case or the 5 preceding cases had on their diagnosis for the subsequent index case.Among 152 pathologists, 49 provided interpretive data in both phases I and II, 66 from only phase I, and 37 from phase II only. In phase I, pathologists were more likely to indicate a more severe diagnosis than the reference diagnosis when the preceding case was diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive cancer (proportional odds ratio [POR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.42). Results were similar when considering the preceding 5 cases and for the pathologists in phase II who interpreted the same cases in a different order compared with phase I (POR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31).Physicians appear to be influenced by the severity of previously interpreted test cases. Understanding types and sources of diagnostic bias may lead to improved assessment of accuracy and better patient care.

SUBMITTER: Frederick PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5045742 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making.

Frederick Paul D PD Nelson Heidi D HD Carney Patricia A PA Brunyé Tad T TT Allison Kimberly H KH Weaver Donald L DL Elmore Joann G JG

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20160401 1

<h4>Background</h4>Medical decision making may be influenced by contextual factors. We evaluated whether pathologists are influenced by disease severity of recently observed cases.<h4>Methods</h4>Pathologists independently interpreted 60 breast biopsy specimens (one slide per case; 240 total cases in the study) in a prospective randomized observational study. Pathologists interpreted the same cases in 2 phases, separated by a washout period of >6 months. Participants were not informed that the c ...[more]

PMID: 27037007

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is a need to improve the prediction of fracture risk for patients with metastatic bone disease. CT-based rigidity analysis (CTRA) is a sensitive and specific method, yet its influence on clinical decision-making has never been quantified.What is the influence of CTRA on providers' perceived risk of fracture? (2) What is the influence of CTRA on providers' treatment recommendations in simulated clinical scenarios of metastatic bone disease of the femur? (3) Does CTRA improve interobserver agreement regarding treatment recommendations?We conducted a survey among 80 academic physicians (orthopaedic oncologists, musculoskeletal radiologists, and radiation oncologists) using simulated vignettes of femoral lesions presented as three separate scenarios: (1) no CTRA input (baseline); (2) CTRA input suggesting increased risk of fracture (CTRA+); and (3) CTRA input suggesting decreased risk of fracture (CTRA-). Participants were asked to rate the patient's risk of fracture on a scale of 0% to 100% and to provide a treatment recommendation. Overall response rate was 62.5% (50 of 80).When CTRA suggested an increased risk of fracture, physicians perceived the fracture risk to be slightly greater (37% ± 3% versus 42% ± 3%, p < 0.001; mean difference [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 5% [4.7%-5.2%]) and were more prone to recommend surgical stabilization (46% ± 9% versus 54% ± 9%, p < 0.001; mean difference [95% CI] = 9% [7.9-10.1]). When CTRA suggested a decreased risk of fracture, physicians perceived the risk to be slightly decreased (37% ± 25% versus 35% ± 25%, p = 0.04; mean difference [95% CI] = 2% [2.74%-2.26%]) and were less prone to recommend surgical stabilization (46% ± 9% versus 42% ± 9%, p < 0.03; mean difference [95% CI] = 4% [3.9-5.1]). The effect size of the influence of CTRA on physicians' perception of fracture risk and treatment planning varied with lesion severity and specialty of the responders. CTRA did not increase interobserver agreement regarding treatment recommendations when compared with the baseline scenario (? = 0.41 versus ? = 0.43, respectively).Based on this survey study, CTRA had a small influence on perceived fracture risk and treatment recommendations and did not increase interobserver agreement. Further work is required to properly introduce this technique to physicians involved in the care of patients with metastatic lesions. Given the number of preclinical and clinical studies outlining the efficacy of this technique, better education through presentations at seminars/webinars and symposia will be the first step. This should be followed by clinical trials to establish CTRA-based clinical guidelines based on evidence-based medicine. Increased exposure of clinicians to CTRA, including its underlying methodology to study bone structural characteristics, may establish CTRA as a uniform guideline to assess fracture risk.Level III, economic and decision analyses.

Project description:BackgroundWhile shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, some believe they are incompatible. This study explored the mutual influence between physicians' intention to engage in SDM and their intention to follow CPGs.MethodsEmbedded within a clustered randomized trial to assess the impact of training physicians in SDM about using antibiotics to treat acute respiratory tract infections, this study evaluated physicians' intentions to both engage in SDM and follow CPGs. A self-administered questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior evaluated both behavioral intentions and their respective determinants (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) at study entry and exit. We used path analysis to explore the relationships between the intentions. We conducted statistical analyses using the maximum likelihood method and the variance-covariance matrix. Goodness of fit indices encompassed the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index and the root mean square error of approximation.ResultsWe analyzed 244 responses at entry and 236 at exit. In the control group, at entry we observed that physicians' intention to engage in SDM (r?=?0, t?=?0.03) did not affect their intention to follow CPGs; however, their intention to follow CPGs (r?=?-0.31 t?=?-2.82) did negatively influence their intention to engage in SDM. At exit, neither behavioral intention influenced the other. In the experimental group, at entry neither behavioral intention influenced the other; at exit, the intention to engage in SDM still did not influence the intention to use CPGs, although the intention to follow CPGs (r?=?-0.15 t?=?-2.02) slightly negatively influenced the intention to engage in SDM, but this was not clinically significant.ConclusionPhysicians' intention to engage in SDM does not affect their intention to adopt CPGs even after SDM training. Physicians' intention to adopt CPGs had no clinically significant influence on intention to engage in SDM.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01116076.

Project description:BackgroundThe gamification of learning increases student enjoyment, and motivation and engagement in learning tasks. This study investigated the effects of gamification using decision-making cards (DMCs) on diagnostic decision-making and cost using case scenarios.MethodThirty medical students in clinical clerkship participated and were randomly assigned to 14 small groups of 2-3 medical students each. Decision-making was gamified using DMCs with a clinical information heading and medical cost on the front, and clinical information details on the back. First, each team was provided with brief clinical information on case scenarios. Subsequently, DMCs depending on the case were distributed to each team, and team members chose cards one at a time until they reached a diagnosis of the case. The total medical cost was then scored based on the number and contents of cards drawn. Four case scenarios were conducted. The quantitative outcomes including confidence in effective clinical decision-making, motivation to learn diagnostic decision-making, and awareness of medical costs were measured before and after our gamification by self-evaluation using a 7-point Likert scale. The qualitative component consisted of a content analysis on the benefits of learning clinical reasoning using DMCs.ResultConfidence in effective clinical decision-making, motivation to learn diagnostic decision-making, and awareness of medical cost were significantly higher after the gamification. Furthermore, comparing the clinical case scenario tackled last with the one tackled first, the average medical cost of all cards drawn by students decreased significantly from 11,921 to 8,895 Japanese yen. In the content analysis, seven advantage categories of DMCs corresponding to clinical reasoning components were extracted (information gathering, hypothesis generation, problem representation, differential diagnosis, leading or working diagnosis, diagnostic justification, and management and treatment).ConclusionTeaching medical students clinical reasoning using DMCs can improve clinical decision-making confidence and learning motivation, and reduces medical cost in clinical case scenarios. In addition, it can help students to acquire practical knowledge, deepens their understanding of clinical reasoning, and identifies several important clinical reasoning skills including diagnostic decision-making and awareness of medical costs. Gamification using DMCs can be an effective teaching method for improving medical students' diagnostic decision-making and reducing costs.

Project description:BackgroundDual processing theory of human cognition postulates that reasoning and decision-making can be described as a function of both an intuitive, experiential, affective system (system I) and/or an analytical, deliberative (system II) processing system. To date no formal descriptive model of medical decision-making based on dual processing theory has been developed. Here we postulate such a model and apply it to a common clinical situation: whether treatment should be administered to the patient who may or may not have a disease.MethodsWe developed a mathematical model in which we linked a recently proposed descriptive psychological model of cognition with the threshold model of medical decision-making and show how this approach can be used to better understand decision-making at the bedside and explain the widespread variation in treatments observed in clinical practice.ResultsWe show that physician's beliefs about whether to treat at higher (lower) probability levels compared to the prescriptive therapeutic thresholds obtained via system II processing is moderated by system I and the ratio of benefit and harms as evaluated by both system I and II. Under some conditions, the system I decision maker's threshold may dramatically drop below the expected utility threshold derived by system II. This can explain the overtreatment often seen in the contemporary practice. The opposite can also occur as in the situations where empirical evidence is considered unreliable, or when cognitive processes of decision-makers are biased through recent experience: the threshold will increase relative to the normative threshold value derived via system II using expected utility threshold. This inclination for the higher diagnostic certainty may, in turn, explain undertreatment that is also documented in the current medical practice.ConclusionsWe have developed the first dual processing model of medical decision-making that has potential to enrich the current medical decision-making field, which is still to the large extent dominated by expected utility theory. The model also provides a platform for reconciling two groups of competing dual processing theories (parallel competitive with default-interventionalist theories).

Dataset Information

The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making.

Publications

The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets