Suppr超能文献

居民的决策更多地受到决策辅助工具还是专家意见的影响?一项随机对照试验。

Are residents' decisions influenced more by a decision aid or a specialist's opinion? A randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118-2605, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Apr;25(4):316-20. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1251-y. Epub 2010 Jan 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Physicians are reluctant to use decision aids despite their ability to improve care. A potential reason may be that physicians do not believe decision aid advice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether internal medicine residents lend more credence to contradictory decision aid or human advice.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial. Residents read a scenario of a patient with community-acquired pneumonia and were asked whether they would admit the patient to the intensive care unit or the floor. Residents were randomized to receive contrary advice from either a referenced decision aid or an anonymous pulmonologist. They were then asked, in light of this new information, where they would admit the patient.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred eight internal medicine residents.

MEASUREMENTS

The percentage of residents who changed their admission location and the change in confidence in the decision.

MAIN RESULTS

Residents were more likely to change their original admission location (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.1, P = 0.04) and to reduce their confidence in the decision (adjusted difference between means -12.9%, 95% CI -3.0% to -22.8%, P = 0.011) in response to the referenced decision aid than to the anonymous pulmonologist. Confidence in their decision was more likely to change if they initially chose to admit the patient to the floor.

CONCLUSIONS

In a hypothetical case of community-acquired pneumonia, physicians were influenced more by contrary advice from a referenced decision aid than an anonymous specialist. Whether this holds for advice from a respected specialist or in actual practice remains to be studied.

摘要

背景

尽管决策辅助工具能够改善医疗服务,但医生仍不愿使用。一个潜在的原因可能是医生不相信决策辅助工具的建议。

目的

确定内科住院医师是否更相信矛盾的决策辅助工具还是人类的建议。

设计

随机对照试验。住院医师阅读了一个患有社区获得性肺炎的患者的病例,并被问及是否会将患者收入重症监护病房或普通病房。住院医师被随机分配接受参考决策辅助工具或匿名肺科医生的相反建议。然后,根据这些新信息,他们会将患者收治在何处。

参与者

108 名内科住院医师。

测量

改变住院地点的住院医师比例和决策信心的变化。

主要结果

与匿名肺科医生相比,住院医师更有可能改变他们最初的住院地点(OR 2.3,95%CI 1.04 至 5.1,P = 0.04),并降低他们对决策的信心(调整后的平均差异 -12.9%,95%CI -3.0%至-22.8%,P = 0.011)。如果他们最初选择将患者收治在普通病房,那么他们对决策的信心更有可能改变。

结论

在社区获得性肺炎的假设情况下,医生受到参考决策辅助工具的矛盾建议的影响大于受到匿名专家的影响。这是否适用于受尊敬的专家的建议或实际实践仍有待研究。

相似文献

2
Comparison of specialist and generalist care.专科护理与全科护理的比较。
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Sep;42(5):579-583. doi: 10.1071/AH17197.

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验