Sources of non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines in trauma triage: a decision science study

Implementation Science

Amber E Barnato²  Derek C Angus⁴  Baruch Fischhoff³  Coreen Farris¹  Matthew R Rosengart⁵  Deepika Mohan⁵ 

[1] RAND Corporation, Suite 600, 4570 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 200, 200 Meyran Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Department of Critical Care Medicine, The CRISMA Center (Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness), University of Pittsburgh, Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, F1266, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

关键词: Signal detection theory;    Perceptual sensitivity;    Heuristics;    Triage;    Trauma;    Compliance;    Clinical guidelines;    Physician decision making;   

Others  :  813885
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-7-103

 received in 2012-04-19, accepted in 2012-10-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

United States trauma system guidelines specify when to triage patients to specialty centers. Nonetheless, many eligible patients are not transferred as per guidelines. One possible reason is emergency physician decision-making. The objective of the study was to characterize sensory and decisional determinants of emergency physician trauma triage decision-making.

Methods

We conducted a decision science study using a signal detection theory-informed approach to analyze physician responses to a web-based survey of 30 clinical vignettes of trauma cases. We recruited a national convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians who worked at hospitals without level I/II trauma center certification. Using trauma triage guidelines as our reference standard, we estimated physicians’ perceptual sensitivity (ability to discriminate between patients who did and did not meet guidelines for transfer) and decisional threshold (tolerance for false positive or false negative decisions).

Results

We recruited 280 physicians: 210 logged in to the website (response rate 74%) and 168 (80%) completed the survey. The regression coefficient on American College of Surgeons – Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) guidelines for transfer (perceptual sensitivity) was 0.77 (p<0.01, 95% CI 0.68 – 0.87) indicating that the probability of transfer weakly increased as the ACS-COT guidelines would recommend transfer. The intercept (decision threshold) was 1.45 (p<0.01, 95% CI 1.27 – 1.63), indicating that participants had a conservative threshold for transfer, erring on the side of not transferring patients. There was significant between-physician variability in perceptual sensitivity and decisional thresholds. No physician demographic characteristics correlated with perceptual sensitivity, but men and physicians working at non-trauma centers without a trauma-center affiliation had higher decisional thresholds.

Conclusions

On a case vignette-based questionnaire, both sensory and decisional elements in emergency physicians’ cognitive processes contributed to the under-triage of trauma patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Mohan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, et al.: A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. NEJM 2006, 354(4):366-378.
• [2]Celso B, Tepas J, Langland-Orban B, et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcome of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers following the establishment of trauma systems. J Trauma 2006, 60(2):371-378.
• [3]Demetriades D, Martin M, Salim A, et al.: The effect of trauma center designation and trauma voume on outcome in specific severe injuries. Ann Surg 2005, 242(4):512-517.
• [4]Mann NC: Assessing the effectiveness and optimal structure of trauma systems: a consensus among experts. J Trauma 1999, 47(3S):S69-S74.
• [5]Mullins RJ, Mann NC: Population based research assessing the effectiveness of trauma systems. J Trauma 1999, 47(3S):S59-S66.
• [6]MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, et al.: The impact of trauma-center care on functional outcomes following major lower-limb trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90(1):101-109.
• [7]Committee on Trauma – American College of Surgeons: Resources for optimal care of the injured patient. American College of Surgeons, Chicago; 2006.
• [8]Macias CA, Rosengart MR, Puyana JC, et al.: The effects of trauma center care, admission volume, and surgical volume on paralysis after traumatic spinal cord injury. Ann Surg 2009, 249(1):10-17.
• [9]Nathens AB, Jurkovich GJ, MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP: A resource-based assessment of trauma care in the United States. J Trauma 2004, 56(1):173-178.
• [10]Chang DC, Bass RR, Cornwell EE, MacKenzie EJ: Undertriage of elderly trauma patients to state-designated trauma centers. Arch Surg 2008, 143(8):776-781.
• [11]Mohan D, Rosengart MR, Farris C, et al.: Are the American College of Surgeons’ guidelines for the transfer of trauma patients feasible? Arch Surg 2011, 146:786-792.
• [12]Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al.: Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA 1999, 282(15):1458-1465.
• [13]US Department of Health and Human Services: Model Trauma System Planning and Evaluation. https://www.socialtext.net/acs-demo-wiki/index.cgi?regional_trauma_systems_optimal_elements_integration_and_assessment_systems_consultation_guide. webcite Published February 2006. Accessed November 21, 2010
• [14]McFall RM, Treat TA: Quantifying the information value of clinical assessments with signal detection theory. Annu Rev Psych 1999, 50:215-241.
• [15]Swets JA, Dawes RM, Monahan J: Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2000, 1(1):1-26.
• [16]Cohen J: Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer. Psych Bull 1992, 112(1):155-159.
• [17]McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, et al.: Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). CMAJ 2004, 171:1369-1373.
• [18]Yonelinas AP, Colleen CM: Receiver operating characteristics in recognition memory: a review. Psychol Bull 2007, 133:800-832.
• [19]Yeater EA, Treat TA, Viken RJ, et al.: Cognitive processes underlying women’s risk judgment: associations with genderual victimization history and rape myth acceptance. J Consult Clin Psych 2010, 78(3):375-386.
• [20]DeCarlo TL: Signal detection theory and generalized linear models. Psychol Methods 1998, 3(2):186-205.
• [21]Macmillan NA, Creelman CD: Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York; 2005.
• [22]Thompson C, Dalgleish L, Bucknell T, et al.: The effects of time pressure and experience on nurses' risk assessment decisions: a signal detection analysis. Nurs Res 2008, 57(5):302-311.
• [23]Shafir E, Tversky A: Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cogn Psychol 1992, 24:449-474.
• [24]Bastardi A, Shafir E: On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998, 75(1):19-32.
• [25]Kahneman D, Tversky A: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Edited by Daniel K, Paul S, Amos T. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY; 2003.
• [26]Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Van Wert MJ, et al.: Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. J Exp Psychol 2007, 136:623-638.
• [27]Shah R, Edgar DF, Evans BJW: A comparison of standardized patients, record abstraction and clinical vignettes for the purpose of measuring clinical practice. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2010, 30:209-224.
• [28]Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al.: Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA 2000, 283(13):1715-1722.
• [29]Institute of Medicine: Clinical guidelines we can trust. National Academies Press, Washington D.C; 2011.
• [30]Birnbaum MH: Base rates in bayesian inference: signal detection analysis of the cab problem. Am J Psychol 1983, 96:85-94.