Validating a Vignette-Based Instrument to Study Physician Decision Making in Trauma Triage

Author:

Mohan Deepika12345,Fischhoff Baruch12345,Farris Coreen12345,Switzer Galen E.12345,Rosengart Matthew R.12345,Yealy Donald M.12345,Saul Melissa12345,Angus Derek C.12345,Barnato Amber E.12345

Affiliation:

1. The CRISMA (Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (DM, MRR, DCA)

2. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (DM, MRR)

3. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (BF)

4. VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (GES)

5. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (GES, AEB)

Abstract

Background. The evidence supporting the use of vignettes to study physician decision making comes primarily from the study of low-risk decisions and the demonstration of good agreement at the group level between vignettes and actual practice. The validity of using vignettes to predict decision making in more complex, high-risk contexts and at the individual level remains unknown. Methods. We had previously developed a vignette-based instrument to study physician decision making in trauma triage. Here, we measured the retest reliability, internal consistency, known-groups performance, and criterion validity of the instrument. Thirty-two emergency physicians, recruited at a national academic meeting, participated in reliability testing. Twenty-eight trauma surgeons, recruited using personal contacts, participated in known-groups testing. Twenty-eight emergency physicians, recruited from physicians working at hospitals for which we had access to medical records, participated in criterion validity testing. We measured rates of undertriage (the proportion of severely injured patients not transferred to trauma centers) and overtriage (the proportion of patients transferred with minor injuries) on the instrument. For physicians participating in criterion validity testing, we compared rates of triage on the instrument with rates in practice, based on chart review. Results. Physicians made similar transfer decisions for cases (κ = 0.42, P < 0.01) on 2 administrations of the instrument. Responses were internally consistent (Kuder-Richardson, 0.71–0.91). Surgeons had lower rates of undertriage than emergency physicians (13% v. 70%, P < 0.01). No correlation existed between individual rates of under- or overtriage on the vignettes and in practice ( r = −0.17, P = 0.4; r = −0.03, P = 0.85). Conclusions. The instrument developed to assess trauma triage decision making performed reliably and detected known group differences. However, it did not predict individual physician performance.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3