Mohan Deepika, Angus Derek C, Ricketts Daniel, Farris Coreen, Fischhoff Baruch, Rosengart Matthew R, Yealy Donald M, Barnato Amber E
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 25;9(8):e105445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105445. eCollection 2014.
Physician non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines remains a critical barrier to high quality care. Serious games (using gaming technology for serious purposes) have emerged as a method of studying physician decision making. However, little is known about their validity.
We created a serious game and evaluated its construct validity. We used the decision context of trauma triage in the Emergency Department of non-trauma centers, given widely accepted guidelines that recommend the transfer of severely injured patients to trauma centers. We designed cases with the premise that the representativeness heuristic influences triage (i.e. physicians make transfer decisions based on archetypes of severely injured patients rather than guidelines). We randomized a convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians to a control or cognitive load arm, and compared performance (disposition decisions, number of orders entered, time spent per case). We hypothesized that cognitive load would increase the use of heuristics, increasing the transfer of representative cases and decreasing the transfer of non-representative cases.
We recruited 209 physicians, of whom 168 (79%) began and 142 (68%) completed the task. Physicians transferred 31% of severely injured patients during the game, consistent with rates of transfer for severely injured patients in practice. They entered the same average number of orders in both arms (control (C): 10.9 [SD 4.8] vs. cognitive load (CL):10.7 [SD 5.6], p = 0.74), despite spending less time per case in the control arm (C: 9.7 [SD 7.1] vs. CL: 11.7 [SD 6.7] minutes, p<0.01). Physicians were equally likely to transfer representative cases in the two arms (C: 45% vs. CL: 34%, p = 0.20), but were more likely to transfer non-representative cases in the control arm (C: 38% vs. CL: 26%, p = 0.03).
We found that physicians made decisions consistent with actual practice, that we could manipulate cognitive load, and that load increased the use of heuristics, as predicted by cognitive theory.
医生不遵守临床实践指南仍是高质量医疗的关键障碍。严肃游戏(将游戏技术用于严肃目的)已成为研究医生决策的一种方法。然而,对其有效性知之甚少。
我们创建了一款严肃游戏并评估其结构效度。我们利用非创伤中心急诊科的创伤分诊决策背景,鉴于广泛接受的指南建议将重伤患者转至创伤中心。我们设计案例的前提是代表性启发法会影响分诊(即医生基于重伤患者的原型而非指南做出转诊决策)。我们将急诊医学医生的便利样本随机分为对照组或认知负荷组,并比较其表现(处置决策、输入的医嘱数量、每个案例花费的时间)。我们假设认知负荷会增加启发法的使用,增加代表性案例的转诊率并降低非代表性案例的转诊率。
我们招募了209名医生,其中168名(79%)开始任务,142名(68%)完成任务。在游戏过程中,医生转诊了31%的重伤患者,这与实际中重伤患者的转诊率一致。两组输入的平均医嘱数量相同(对照组(C):10.9[标准差4.8]对认知负荷组(CL):10.7[标准差5.6],p = 0.74),尽管对照组每个案例花费的时间更少(C组:9.7[标准差7.1]分钟对CL组:11.7[标准差6.7]分钟,p<0.01)。两组医生转诊代表性案例的可能性相同(C组:45%对CL组:34%,p = 0.20),但对照组医生转诊非代表性案例的可能性更大(C组:38%对CL组:26%,p = 0.03)。
我们发现医生的决策与实际做法一致,我们能够操纵认知负荷,并且如认知理论所预测的,负荷增加了启发法的使用。