Department of Emergency Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2024 Feb;83(2):123-131. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.03.016. Epub 2023 Apr 13.
Clinical decision aids can decrease health care disparities. However, many clinical decision aids contain subjective variables that may introduce clinician bias. The HEART score is a clinical decision aid that estimates emergency department (ED) patients' cardiac risk. We sought to explore patient and clinician gender's influence on HEART scores.
In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational trial, we examined a convenience sample of adult ED patients at one institution presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. We compared ED clinician-generated HEART scores with researcher-generated HEART scores blinded to patient gender. The primary outcome was agreement between clinician and researcher HEART scores by patient gender overall and stratified by clinician gender. Analyses used difference-in-difference (DiD) for continuous score and prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for binary (low versus moderate/high risk) score comparison.
All 336 clinician-patient pairs from the original study were included. In total, 47% (158/336) of patients were women, and 52% (174/336) were treated by a woman clinician. The DiD between clinician and researcher HEART scores among men versus women patients was 0.24 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.48). Compared with researchers, men clinicians assigned a higher score to men versus women patients (DiD 0.51 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.87]), whereas women clinicians did not (DiD 0.00 [95% CI -0.33 to 0.33]). Agreement was the highest among women clinicians (PABAK 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81) and lowest among men clinicians assessing men patients (PABAK 0.47; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.66).
Patient and clinician gender may influence HEART scores. Researchers should strive to understand these influences in developing and implementing this and other clinical decision aids.
临床决策辅助工具可以减少医疗保健差异。然而,许多临床决策辅助工具包含可能引入临床医生偏见的主观变量。HEART 评分是一种评估急诊科(ED)患者心脏风险的临床决策辅助工具。我们试图探讨患者和临床医生性别对 HEART 评分的影响。
在对一项前瞻性观察性试验的二次分析中,我们检查了一家机构的急性冠状动脉综合征症状成年 ED 患者的方便样本。我们比较了 ED 临床医生生成的 HEART 评分与研究者生成的 HEART 评分,后者对患者性别进行了盲法。主要结局是根据患者性别和临床医生性别对临床医生和研究人员 HEART 评分的一致性进行分层。分析使用差值差异(DiD)进行连续评分,使用调整偏倚的调整后 Kappa(PABAK)进行二分类(低风险与中/高风险)评分比较。
原始研究的所有 336 例临床医生-患者对均包括在内。共有 47%(158/336)的患者为女性,52%(174/336)由女性临床医生治疗。男性患者与女性患者的临床医生与研究者 HEART 评分之间的 DiD 为 0.24(95%CI -0.01 至 0.48)。与研究人员相比,男性临床医生对男性患者的评分更高(DiD 0.51 [95%CI 0.16 至 0.87]),而女性临床医生则没有(DiD 0.00 [95%CI -0.33 至 0.33])。女性临床医生的一致性最高(PABAK 0.72;95%CI 0.61 至 0.81),而评估男性患者的男性临床医生的一致性最低(PABAK 0.47;95%CI 0.29 至 0.66)。
患者和临床医生的性别可能会影响 HEART 评分。研究人员在开发和实施这一临床决策辅助工具和其他临床决策辅助工具时,应努力了解这些影响。