PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8118734

The case for using objective scoring systems to predict intensive care unit outcome.

Abstract

The acceptance and more widespread use of objective probability estimates will depend on addressing several practical issues. Physicians generally are unfamiliar with these estimates, their origin, and how they should be used. Physicians need to understand the conceptual origins of prognostic systems, their strengths and limitations, and their usefulness in helping to resolve uncertainty and improve critical decision making. Better communication and understanding of patient and family preferences and values will be necessary to ensure that the use of numerical predictions will not be the dominant or exclusive consideration. No matter how refined and elaborate these systems become, they represent simplification of even more complex biologic decision-making systems. The predictions must be interpreted carefully and used by trained intensivists, with the constant opportunity to exercise human discretion. The challenge to the developers of these systems will be to improve their accuracy, refine their use with specific disease entities that are important in determining outcome in critical care (e.g. multi-organ system failure, sepsis, adult respiratory distress syndrome), improve display of data and ease of data capture with automated systems, and construct data-bases and predictive equations that are fluid, constantly growing, and adjusting to capture developments in medical care.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C M Watts, W A Knaus. 1994. The case for using objective scoring systems to predict intensive care unit outcome.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8118734/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed.

This review summarizes key factors that have interfered with translation of research to practice and what public health researchers can do to hasten such transfer, focusing on characteristics of interventions, target settings, and research designs. The need to address context and to utilize research, review, and reporting practices that address external validity issues-such as designs that focus on replication, and practical clinical and behavioral trials-are emphasized. Although there has been increased emphasis on social-ecological interventions that go beyond the individual level, interventions often address each component as if it were an independent intervention. Greater attention is needed to connectedness across program levels and components. Finally, examples are provided of evaluation models and current programs that can help accelerate translation of research to practice and policy.

Decision Making, Organizational↗