PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Arthur S Elstein

Publications and source records attributed to Arthur S Elstein.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Patients' values and clinical substituted judgments: the case of localized prostate cancer.

The authors examined agreement between patients' utilities and importance rankings and clinicians' judgments of these assessments using a multiattribute model representing 6 aspects of health states potentially associated with localized prostate cancer. Patients were interviewed individually shortly after diagnosis and at a follow-up visit to obtain time-tradeoff utilities for 4 health states, including current health, and importance ranks of the 6 attributes. Their clinicians independently provided views of what utilities and importance ranks would be in the patient's best interest. Using patient-clinician pairs as the unit of analysis, the authors discovered that only about 50% of the correlations across 4 health states were high enough (.80) to be acceptable for clinical use for substituted judgment. Their conclusion: Clinicians should recognize that their judgments of the utility of health states associated with localized prostate cancer may not correspond closely with those of the patient.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2005

Do physicians know when their diagnoses are correct? Implications for decision support and error reduction.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the alignment between physicians' confidence in their diagnoses and the "correctness" of these diagnoses, as a function of clinical experience, and whether subjects were prone to over-or underconfidence. DESIGN: Prospective, counterbalanced experimental design. SETTING: Laboratory study conducted under controlled conditions at three academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two senior medical students, 72 senior medical residents, and 72 faculty internists. INTERVENTION: We created highly detailed, 2-to 4-page synopses of 36 diagnostically challenging medical cases, each with a definitive correct diagnosis. Subjects generated a differential diagnosis for each of 9 assigned cases, and indicated their level of confidence in each diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A differential was considered "correct" if the clinically true diagnosis was listed in that subject's hypothesis list. To assess confidence, subjects rated the likelihood that they would, at the time they generated the differential, seek assistance in reaching a diagnosis. Subjects' confidence and correctness were "mildly" aligned (kappa=.314 for all subjects, .285 for faculty, .227 for residents, and .349 for students). Residents were overconfident in 41% of cases where their confidence and correctness were not aligned, whereas faculty were overconfident in 36% of such cases and students in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Even experienced clinicians may be unaware of the correctness of their diagnoses at the time they make them. Medical decision support systems, and other interventions designed to reduce medical errors, cannot rely exclusively on clinicians' perceptions of their needs for such support.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

Inter-rater agreement in judging errors in diagnostic reasoning.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Inter-rater agreement is essential in rating clinical performance of doctors and other health professionals. The purpose of this study was to establish inter-rater agreement in categorising errors in the diagnostic process made by clinicians using computerised decision support systems. METHODS: Eight possible error categories were developed for coding errors in diagnostic hypotheses and plans for next steps in the work-up. Two independent doctor judges rated 54 work-ups (representing 2 cases, each worked-up by 27 doctors). Inter-rater agreement between the 2 raters was computed using the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: High inter-rater agreement was achieved in all categories except where the manual was not sufficiently specific and raters had to use their judgement. As is typical of the kappa coefficient, however, agreement corrected for chance fell markedly into the "poor" range when the percentages of expected and observed agreement were about the same. CONCLUSION: Raters can achieve good agreement in categorising errors provided they are given explicit scoring rules and do not rely solely upon clinical judgement. The kappa coefficient has limitations in cases where the expected agreement between judges is high and variability is low. The use of 2 indices to assess agreement, analogous to test sensitivity and specificity, is recommended.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

Agreement between prostate cancer patients and their clinicians about utilities and attribute importance.

PURPOSE: To examine the agreement between prostate cancer patients' utilities for selected health states and their rankings of the importance of six attributes of the health states and the clinicians' judgements of what would be in the patients' best interests. METHOD: Patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer individually completed a time trade-off utility assessment shortly after being diagnosed. The health states evaluated were constructed from a multi-attribute utility model that incorporated six aspects of living with the disease and outcomes of treatment. Each patient assessed his current health state and three hypothetical states that might occur in the future, and provided rankings of the importance of the six attributes. The clinicians caring for each patient independently provided their views of what utilities and importance rankings would be in the patient's best interest. RESULTS: The across-participant correlations between patients' and clinicians' utilities were very low and not statistically significant. Across-participant correlations between patient and clinician importance rankings for the six attributes were also low. Across-health state and across-attribute correlations between utilities or importance rankings were highly variable across patient-clinician pairs. CONCLUSION: In the clinical settings studied, there is not a strong relationship between valuations of current and possible future health states by patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and their clinicians. Implications of these results for substituted judgement, when clinicians advise their patients or recommend a treatment strategy, are discussed.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2004

Ethnic variation in localized prostate cancer: a pilot study of preferences, optimism, and quality of life among black and white veterans.

Ethnic variations that may influence the preferences and outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatment are not well delineated. Our objective was to evaluate prospectively preferences, optimism, involvement in care, and quality of life (QOL) in black and white veterans newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. A total of 95 men who identified themselves as black/African-American or white who had newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer completed a "time trade-off" task to assess utilities for current health and mild, moderate, and severe functional impairment; importance rankings for attributes associated with prostate cancer (eg, urinary function); and baseline and follow-up measures of optimism, involvement in care, and QOL. Interviews were scheduled before treatment, and at 3 and 12 months after treatment. At baseline, both blacks and whites ranked pain, bowel, and bladder function as their most important concerns. Optimism, involvement in care, and QOL were similar. Utilities for mild impairment were lower for blacks than whites, but were similar for moderate and severe problems. Decline in QOL at 3 and 12 months compared to baseline occurred for both groups. However, even with adjustment for marital status, education level, and treatment, blacks had less increase in nausea and vomiting and more increase in difficulty with sexual interest and weight gain compared with whites. Black and white veterans entered localized prostate cancer treatment with similar priorities, optimism, and involvement in care. Quality-of-life declines were common to both groups during the first year after diagnosis, but ethnic variation occurred with respect to nausea and vomiting, sexual interest, and weight gain.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Presenting risks and benefits to patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patients are influenced by the order in which they learn the risks and benefits of a treatment and whether this effect is attenuated by a treatment's associated risk and/or benefit. DESIGN: Subjects were randomized to review 1 of 6 medical treatment information brochures. SETTING: Waiting rooms of primary care physicians at an academic health center. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-five subjects, ages 18 to 70 years. INTERVENTION: Subjects reviewed 1 of 3 treatments for symptomatic carotid artery disease. The first (aspirin) was low-risk/low-benefit, the second (carotid endarterectomy surgery) was high-risk/high-benefit, and the third (extracranial-to-intracranial bypass surgery) was high-risk but of unknown benefit. Patients were also randomized to receive information about risk either before or after benefit. Patients were asked to rate the favorability of the treatment on a scale of 0 to 100 and whether they would consent. Finally, subjects rated how their decisions were influenced by the risk and benefit information. MAIN RESULTS: Subjects evaluating aspirin therapy were influenced by the order of the risk/benefit information. Those learning about risks after benefits had a greater drop in their favorability ratings than subjects learning about risks before benefits (-10.9 vs -5.2 on a 100-point scale; P = .02) and were less likely to consent (odds ratio, 2.27; P = .04). In contrast, subjects evaluating carotid endarterectomy and extracranial-to-intracranial bypass were not influenced by information order. When subjects were influenced by the order of information, they also reported that the treatment's risk had less influence on their decision making (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: When patients evaluate low-risk medical interventions, they may form less favorable impressions of the treatment and be less likely to consent to the treatment when they learn about the risks after the benefits. Order effects were not observed with high-risk treatments regardless of potential benefits.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Physicians' judgments of survival after medical management and mortality risk reduction due to revascularization procedures for patients with coronary artery disease.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: s: To assess the accuracy of physicians' judgments of survival probability for medically managed patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and of the absolute risk reduction of mortality due to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for such patients; and relationships among these judgments and the physicians' propensity to perform revascularization. DESIGN: Two surveys (for three-vessel or two-vessel CAD) for patients presenting with stable CAD, currently managed medically, and without other life-limiting problems. SETTING: Multiple educational conferences, 1996-1997. PARTICIPANTS: Conference attendees. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Main outcomes were proportions of patients for whom the physicians would recommend revascularization (CABG for three-vessel CAD, CABG or PTCA for two-vessel CAD), and judgments of the proportions of medically managed patients who would be alive after 5 years, 7 years, and 11 years, and of absolute risk reduction of mortality due to CABG (or PTCA for two-vessel CAD). At least one half of the participants judged the survival rate of medically managed patients with three-vessel or two-vessel CAD to be less than the lowest rates supported by the best available evidence. More than one fourth judged the absolute risk reduction due to CABG to be higher than the highest values based on such evidence. Physicians' propensity to perform revascularization correlated inversely with their judgments of survival given medical management, and with their judgments of absolute risk reduction due to revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians may overuse revascularization because of excessive pessimism about survival of medically managed patients, and excessive optimism about the survival benefits of revascularization.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗
PubMed2002

Pilot study of a utilities-based treatment decision intervention for prostate cancer patients.

This pilot study evaluates a shared decision-making approach to individual decision making in localized prostate cancer care. The approach is based on a decision analytic model that incorporates patient utilities, ie, patient preferences among possible health states that might occur with prostate cancer treatments. Data on comorbidities, histologic grade of the biopsy, and age were obtained for 13 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer who received care in a Veterans Administration medical center. Using a standard gamble technique, interviewers obtained patient utilities for 5 distinct health states related to prostate cancer treatment. Utilities and patient clinical and pathologic characteristics were incorporated into the decision analytic model, and the derived quality-adjusted life expectancies were shared with the treating urologist before the first patient-physician discussion about treatment options. The results of the pilot study raised 2 major concerns. First, 4 patients had utility scores of 1.0 for all of the possible health states, and 7 patients had inconsistent utilities in which they rated both impotence and incontinence as a better health state than having just one of these problems. Second, the model recommended radiation therapy to individuals with a broad range of clinical characteristics, pathologic findings, and utility scores. Many of the patients who were recommended radiation therapy by the model received discordant recommendations from the treating urologist. Future refinements of both the utility assessment exercise and decision analytic model may be needed before the feasibility of the model in the clinical setting can be determined.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Critical thinking and clinical decision making in critical care nursing: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined the relationship of education level, years of critical care nursing experience, and critical thinking (CT) ability (skills and dispositions) to consistency in clinical decision making among critical care nurses. Consistency was defined as the degree to which intuitive and analytical decision processes resulted in similar selection of interventions in tasks of low and high complexity. DESIGN: The study was nonexperimental and correlational. SAMPLE: Critical care nurses (n = 54) from adult critical care units in 3 private teaching hospitals. The majority of nurses held a BSN or MSN and had an average of 9 years of direct clinical experience in the care of the critically ill. RESULTS: Decision-making consistency decreased significantly between low-complexity and high-complexity tasks. Both intuitive and analytical decision processes produced clear intervention selections in the low-complexity task, although the analytical process resulted in a more complete specification of interventions. In the high-complexity task, however, only the intuitive process resulted in a clear, plausible, and safe specification of interventions. Education and experience were not related to CT ability, nor was CT ability related to decision-making consistency. Only greater years of critical care nursing experience increased the likelihood of decision-making consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, intuitive decision processes resulted in more clinically consistent selection of interventions across tasks. More investigation is needed to examine the influence of decision heuristics, and the conceptualization and measurement of CT abilities among practicing nurses.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Patient-physician fit: an exploratory study of a multidimensional instrument.

BACKGROUND: Patients face difficulty selecting physicians because they have little knowledge of how physicians' behaviors fit with their own preferences. OBJECTIVE: To develop scales of patient and physician behavior preferences and determine whether patient-physician fit is associated with patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Two cross-sectional surveys of patients and providers. SETTING: Ambulatory clinics at a university medical center. Participants. Eight general internists, 14 family physicians, and 193 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Two instruments were developed to measure 6 preferences for physician behaviors: 1) considering nonmedical aspects of the patient's life, 2) familiarity with herbal medicine, 3) physician decision making, 4) providing information, 5) considering the patient's religion, and 6) treating what the patient perceives as his or her problem. Patients reported how they would prefer physicians to behave, and physicians reported how they preferred to behave. Patients also rated satisfaction with their physician. RESULTS: Post hoc tests found that as a group, patients scored higher than physicians in preference for the physician to provide information and lower in preference for considering nonmedical aspects of the patient's life and religious beliefs. As hypothesized, preference differences accounted for significant variance in satisfaction in overall tests (19% in the family medicine patients and 25% in internal medicine patients). Greater satisfaction was associated with fit between patient and physician preferences for physician decision making (in the internal medicine patients) and with fit in providing information and consideration of religion (in family medicine patients) CONCLUSIONS: Patients often prefer behaviors other than how their physicians prefer to behave. Preference fit is associated with enhanced patient satisfaction. Physicians should attend to whether patients want religion and other nonmedical aspects of their lives considered. Health plans may wish to provide tools to help patients choose physicians by fit.

Academic Medical Centers↗