Avoiding Rash Decisions

Dylan Eiger,Anand Vaidya,Jennifer Hanberg,Roger Clark,Staci Eisenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmimc2312950

IF: 158.5

2024-09-27

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 391, Issue 12, September 26, 2024.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Pros and Cons in Medical Decision Making

Zhongheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jeccm.2018.01.15

2018-01-01

Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:The Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine launched a new column under the name pros and cons. The aim of the column is to provide a platform for controversial issues in the management of critically ill patients. Some novel ideas and insights can be discovered through the process of discussing and debating.
Getting patients ready for “in the moment” decisions

Aanand D. Naik,Anne M. Walling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17935

2022-07-04

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract:This Editorial comments on the article by Wong et al. in this issue.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Joshua A. Daily,Stephen Dalby,Lawrence Greiten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4

2024-03-24

Pediatric Cardiology

Abstract:Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that humans frequently diverge from rational decision-making processes due to the pervasive influence of cognitive biases. This paper conducts an examination of the impact of cognitive biases on high-stakes decision-making within the context of the joint pediatric cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery conference, offering practical recommendations for mitigating their effects. Recognized biases such as confirmation bias, availability bias, outcome bias, overconfidence bias, sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, planning fallacy, authority bias, and illusion of agreement are analyzed concerning their specific implications within this conference setting. To counteract these biases and enhance the quality of decision-making, practical strategies are proposed, including the implementation of a no-interruption policy until all data is reviewed, leaders refraining from immediate input, requiring participants to formulate independent judgments prior to sharing recommendations, explicit probability estimations grounded in base rates, seeking external opinions, and promoting an environment that encourages dissenting perspectives.

pediatrics,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Decision-making and safety in anesthesiology

Marjorie P. Stiegler,Keith J. Ruskin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/aco.0b013e328359307a

2012-12-01

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

Abstract:PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anesthesiologists work in a complex environment that is intolerant of errors. Cognitive errors, or errors in thought processes, are mistakes that a clinician makes despite 'knowing better'. Several new studies provide a better understanding of how to manage risk while making better decisions.RECENT FINDINGS: Heuristics, or mental shortcuts, allow physicians to make decisions quickly and efficiently but may be responsible for errors in diagnosis and treatment. Using simple 'decision-making checklists' can help healthcare providers to make the correct decisions by monitoring their own thought processes. Anesthesiologists can adopt risk assessment tools that were originally developed for use by pilots to determine the hazards associated with a particular clinical management strategy.SUMMARY: Effective decision-making and risk management reduce the risk of adverse events in the operating room. This article proposes several new decision-making and risk assessment tools for use in the operating room.

English Else
Reflexive control in emergency medicine

Kenneth V. Iserson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.04.037

IF: 3.6

2024-04-27

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Emergency physicians (EPs) navigate high-pressure environments, making rapid decisions amidst ambiguity. Their choices are informed by a complex interplay of experience, information, and external forces. While cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) expedite assessments, there are multiple ways they can be subtly manipulated, potentially leading to reflexive control: external actors steering EPs' decisions for their own benefit. Pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and media narratives are among the numerous factors that influence the EPs' information landscape. Using tactics such as selective data dissemination, framing, and financial incentives, these actors can exploit pre-existing cognitive biases like anchoring, confirmation, and availability. This creates fertile ground for reflexive control, where EPs may believe they are acting independently while unknowingly serving the goals of external influencers. The consequences of manipulated decision making can be severe: misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and increased healthcare costs. Ethical dilemmas arise when external pressures conflict with patient well-being. Recognizing these dangers empowers EPs to resist reflexive control through (1) critical thinking: examining information for potential biases and prioritizing evidence-based practices, (2) continuous education: learning about cognitive biases and mitigation strategies, and (3) institutional policies: implementing regulations to reduce external influence and to promote transparency. This vulnerability of emergency medicine decision making highlights the need for awareness, education, and robust ethical frameworks. Understanding reflexive control techniques is crucial for safeguarding patient care and promoting independent, ethical decision making in emergency medicine.

emergency medicine
Avoiding Undesired Choices Using Intelligent Adaptive Systems

Amir Konigsberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1404.3659

2014-04-10

Abstract:We propose a number of heuristics that can be used for identifying when intransitive choice behaviour is likely to occur in choice situations. We also suggest two methods for avoiding undesired choice behaviour, namely transparent communication and adaptive choice-set generation. We believe that these two ways can contribute to the avoidance of decision biases in choice situations that may often be regretted.

Artificial Intelligence
Reviewers for the Journal, July–December 2023

Eric J. Rubin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejme2400304

IF: 158.5

2024-02-08

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 6, Page 558-558, February 2024.

medicine, general & internal
Decision-Making for Preventive Interventions in Asymptomatic Patients

Andreas Raabe,Urs Fischer,Peter M. Rothwell,Ramon Luengo-Fernandez,David Bervini,Johannes Goldberg,Sven Trelle,Jan Gralla,Jürgen Beck,Irena Zubak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.123.045106

IF: 10.17

2024-06-26

Stroke

Abstract:Stroke, Volume 55, Issue 7, Page 1951-1955, July 1, 2024. The decision to treat an incidental finding in an asymptomatic patient results from careful risk-benefit consideration and is often challenging. One of the main aspects is after how many years the group who underwent the intervention and faced the immediate treatment complications will gain a treatment benefit over the conservatively managed group, which maintains a lower but ongoing risk. We identify a common error in decision-making. We illustrate how a risk-based approach using the classical break-even point at the Kaplan-Meier curves can be misleading and advocate for using an outcome-based approach, counting the cumulative number of lost quality-adjusted life years instead. In clinical practice, we often add together the yearly risk of the natural course up to the time point where the number equals the risk of the intervention and assume that the patient will benefit from an intervention beyond this point in time. It corresponds to the crossing of the Kaplan-Meier curves. However, because treatment-related poor outcome occurs at the time of the intervention, while the poor outcome in the conservative group occurs over a given time period, the true benefit of retaining more quality-adjusted life years in the interventional group emerges at a much later time. To avoid overtreatment of patients with asymptomatic diseases, decision-making should be outcome-based with counting the cumulative loss of quality-adjusted life years, rather than risk-based, comparing the interventional risk with the ongoing yearly risk of the natural course.

peripheral vascular disease,clinical neurology
Decision fatigue: less is more when making choices with patients.

Alexandra Moorhouse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X711989

2020-07-30

Abstract:Decision fatigue is something we have all experienced. Perhaps when you’re looking at the 40th script request of the day or the blood results that have come back at 6.30 pm and you can’t seem to think what to do next. We each have a finite amount of mental energy that we can expend on decision making before our brain starts to look for a shortcut. It at least partially explains why weekend shoppers impulse buy and elite athletes make unaccountable decisions at the end of a game. Decision fatigue is also a well recognised reason behind poor clinical decision making, decision avoidance, and as a precursor to burnout. It doesn’t just affect clinical members of the team, particularly with the rise of care navigation in surgeries; and negatively impacts the patient experience. Clinicians suffering from decision fatigue are more likely to make more conservative management plans1 and also to offer inappropriate …

Psychology,Medicine
Engaging patient partners in state-of-the-art allergy care: Finding balance when discussing risk

Marcus Shaker,Karen Hsu Blatman,Elissa M Abrams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2020.01.029

Abstract:Objective: To review risk communication in the context of shared decision making. Data sources: Articles describing risk communication, shared decision making, and cost-effective healthcare delivery. Study selections: A narrative review detailing approaches to improve risk communication and shared decision making to optimize patient-centered cost-effective practice. Results: Risk communication must occur on a foundation of mutual trust and can be improved by keeping risk in perspective of everyday hazards, such as using pictograms when possible, providing numeric likelihoods of risks and benefits, and discussing absolute risks. Variability in patient-perceived quality of life for allergic and nonallergic health states may affect the health and economic outcomes of many allergy therapies. Shared decision making improves patient knowledge and risk perception, engagement, and adherence. Patient decision aids can be time-consuming to develop and validate, but their use is associated with a more accurate understanding of patient-oriented outcomes. Conclusion: Communicating risk is complex, and validated patient decision aids using visual aids, presenting essential information, using knowledge checks, and incorporating values clarification can reduce decisional conflict and improve decisional self-efficacy.
High Levels of Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret When Making Decisions About Biologics

Ellen A Lipstein,Daniel J Lovell,Lee A Denson,Sandra C Kim,Charles Spencer,Richard F Ittenbach,Maria T Britto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001425

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of the study was to understand the association between parents' perceptions of the decision process and the decision outcomes in decisions about the use of biologics in pediatric chronic conditions. Methods: We mailed surveys to parents of children with inflammatory bowel disease or juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had started treatment with biologics in the prior 2 years and were treated at either of 2 children's hospitals. The survey included measures of the decision process, including decision control and physician engagement, and decision outcomes, including conflict and regret. We used means and frequencies to assess the response distributions. General linear models were used to test the associations between decision process and decision outcomes. Results: We had 201 respondents (response rate 54.9%). Approximately 47.0% reported using shared decision making. Each physician engagement behavior was experienced by the majority of parents, with the highest percentage reporting that their child's physician used language they understood and listened to them. Approximately 48.5% of parents had decisional conflict scores of 25 or greater, indicating high levels of conflict. Approximately 28.2% had no regret, 31.8% had mild regret, and the remaining 40.0% had moderate to severe regret. Shared decision making was not associated with improved decisional conflict, but physician engagement behaviors were associated with both decisional conflict and regret. Conclusions: Improving decision outcomes will require more than just focusing on who parents perceive as controlling the final decision. Developing interventions that facilitate specific physician engagement behaviors may decrease parents' distress around decision making and improve decision outcomes.
Improving shared health decision making for children and adolescents with chronic illness: A narrative literature review

Eva M Krockow,Erica Riviere,Caren A Frosch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.017

Abstract:Objective: This review aims to increase understanding of health decision-making by children and adolescents with chronic illnesses and offer suggestions for improving shared decision-making with healthcare professionals. Methods: Using cross-disciplinary publication databases, we surveyed literature on children's and adolescents' health decision-making from psychology, health sciences, and neuroscience. Results: Several factors influencing health decision-making were identified. Considering neurobiological aspects, children lack functionality in the frontal lobe resulting in lesser cognitive control and higher risk-taking compared to adults. Additionally, adolescents' generally higher arousal of socioemotional systems demonstrates neurological underpinnings for reward-seeking behaviours. Psychological investigations of children's health decision-making indicate important age-dependent differences in risk-taking, locus of control, affect and cognitive biases. Furthermore, social influences, particularly from peers, have a large, often negative, effect on individual decision-making due to desire for peer acceptance. Conclusion: Acknowledging these factors is necessary for optimising the process of shared decision-making to support minors with chronic illnesses during healthcare consultations. Practice implications: Doctors and other healthcare professionals may need to counteract some adolescents' risk-taking behaviours which are often spurred by peer pressure. This can be achieved by highlighting the patient's control over health outcomes, emphasising short-term benefits and long-term consequences of risky behaviours, and recommending peer support networks.
Being Well while Doing Well

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2403542

IF: 158.5

2024-05-02

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 17, Page 1635-1635, May 2, 2024.

medicine, general & internal
Emergency decision-making under an uncertain time limit

Ehsan Taheri,Chen Wang,Elmira Zahmat Doost

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103832

IF: 4.842

2023-07-09

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

Abstract:We investigate emergency decision-making behaviors in the face of life losses under an uncertain time limit. We design a behavioral experiment with the background of a hypothetical disaster to investigate the subjects' decision strategies. We find that prior experience affects a subject's estimation and actual consumption of time on comparing the rescue options in the following disaster. We also observe a risk shift that when an uncertain time limit is imposed, most risk-averse subjects with no time limit exhibit risk-taking behaviors. Moreover, under more intense time pressure, subjects are more likely to adopt heuristics such as seeking the best outcome with the highest probability, seeking the best while avoiding the unacceptable worst, and achieving a satisficing result with a target probability. As time pressure relaxes, most subjects perform actuarial calculations to compare the available options. We recommend emergency managers to be cautioned against the anchoring effect of prior experience and the heuristics of seeking the possibility of saving more people (which could pose an unwarranted risk).

geosciences, multidisciplinary,meteorology & atmospheric sciences,water resources
Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information

Stijntje W. Dijk,Eline Krijkamp,Natalia Kunst,Jeremy A. Labrecque,Cary P. Gross,Aradhana Pandit,Chia-Ping Lu,Loes E. Visser,John B. Wong,M. G. Myriam Hunink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x241255047

2024-06-05

Medical Decision Making

Abstract:Medical Decision Making, Ahead of Print. BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic underscored the criticality and complexity of decision making for novel treatment approval and further research. Our study aims to assess potential decision-making methodologies, an evaluation vital for refining future public health crisis responses.MethodsWe compared 4 decision-making approaches to drug approval and research: the Food and Drug Administration's policy decisions, cumulative meta-analysis, a prospective value-of-information (VOI) approach (using information available at the time of decision), and a reference standard (retrospective VOI analysis using information available in hindsight). Possible decisions were to reject, accept, provide emergency use authorization, or allow access to new therapies only in research settings. We used monoclonal antibodies provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a case study, examining the evidence from September 2020 to December 2021 and focusing on each method's capacity to optimize health outcomes and resource allocation.ResultsOur findings indicate a notable discrepancy between policy decisions and the reference standard retrospective VOI approach with expected losses up to 16 billion and the prospective VOI approach presented the least loss (up to $2 billion).ConclusionOur research suggests that incorporating VOI analysis may be particularly useful for research prioritization and treatment implementation decisions during pandemics. While the prospective VOI approach was favored in this case study, further studies should validate the ideal decision-making method across various contexts. This study's findings not only enhance our understanding of decision-making strategies during a health crisis but also provide a potential framework for future pandemic responses.HighlightsThis study reviews discrepancies between a reference standard (retrospective VOI, using hindsight information) and 3 conceivable real-time approaches to research-treatment decisions during a pandemic, suggesting suboptimal use of resources.Of all prospective decision-making approaches considered, VOI closely mirrored the reference standard, yielding the least expected value loss across our study timeline.This study illustrates the possible benefit of VOI results and the need for evidence accumulation accompanied by modeling in health technology assessment for emerging therapies.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,health policy & services
Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

Camille Lakhlifi,Benjamin Rohaut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2023.104181

Abstract:Neuropronostication for consciousness disorders can be very complex and prone to high uncertainty. Despite notable advancements in the development of dedicated scales and physiological markers using innovative paradigms, these technical progressions are often overshadowed by factors intrinsic to the medical environment. Beyond the scarcity of objective data guiding medical decisions, factors like time pressure, fatigue, multitasking, and emotional load can drive clinicians to rely more on heuristic-based clinical reasoning. Such an approach, albeit beneficial under certain circumstances, may lead to systematic error judgments and impair medical decisions, especially in complex and uncertain environments. After a brief review of the main theoretical frameworks, this paper explores the influence of clinicians' cognitive biases on clinical reasoning and decision-making in the challenging context of neuroprognostication for consciousness disorders. The discussion further revolves around developing and implementing various strategies designed to mitigate these biases and their impact, aiming to enhance the quality of care and the patient safety.
Judgement and Decision Making in Clinical and Return-to-Sports Decision Making: A Narrative Review

Kate K. Yung,Clare L. Ardern,Fabio R. Serpiello,Sam Robertson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02054-9

IF: 11.928

2024-06-27

Sports Medicine

Abstract:Making return-to-sport decisions can be complex and multi-faceted, as it requires an evaluation of an individual's physical, psychological, and social well-being. Specifically, the timing of progression, regression, or return to sport can be difficult to determine due to the multitude of information that needs to be considered by clinicians. With the advent of new sports technology, the increasing volume of data poses a challenge to clinicians in effectively processing and utilising it to enhance the quality of their decisions. To gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying human decision making and associated biases, this narrative review provides a brief overview of different decision-making models that are relevant to sports rehabilitation settings. Accordingly, decisions can be made intuitively, analytically, and/or with heuristics. This narrative review demonstrates how the decision-making models can be applied in the context of return-to-sport decisions and shed light on strategies that may help clinicians improve decision quality.

sport sciences
The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment

,Joshua E. Rosen,Sarah E. Monsell,Sara C. DePaoli,Erin C. Fannon,Johnathan E. Kohler,Caroline E. Reinke,Lillian S. Kao,Ryan B. Fransman,Jonah J. Stulberg,Michael B. Shapiro,Deepika Nehra,Pauline K. Park,Sabrina E. Sanchez,Katherine N. Fischkoff,Giana H. Davidson,David R. Flum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006412

IF: 13.787

2024-06-25

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Objective: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict. Summary Background Data: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (e.g., recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (e.g., more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options and decision support tools that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent to the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment (www.appyornot.org). Methods: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021-2023. Treatment preferences before- and after- use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST. Results: 8,243 people from 66 countries and all 50 US states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% ( P <0.0001). 52% of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS) (n=356) reported the lowest level of decisional conflict ( 50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75. Conclusion: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.

surgery
A Swell Diagnosis

Jad Allam,Don C. Rockey,Ala I. Sharara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmcps2307935

IF: 158.5

2024-01-05

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 1, Page 71-76, January 2024.

medicine, general & internal
Decision-Making at Swissmedic, the Swiss Regulatory Agency, with a Focus on (Neo)adjuvant Cancer Treatments

Matea Pavic,Qiyu Li,Stephanie Juritz,Arunas Gircys,Anita Wolfer,Ulrich-Peter Rohr,Matea Zosso-Pavic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000536541

2024-03-05

Oncology

Abstract:Introduction: Additional considerations are required for the benefit-risk assessment of new drugs or indications in the setting of (neo)adjuvant cancer treatment as compared to the metastatic/advanced setting, possibly leading to different decision patterns for the (neo)adjuvant versus the metastatic and advanced setting within a health authority but also among different health authorities. Methods: We analyzed regulatory decisions at the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) for all oncology indications (mostly metastatic indications) and indications in the (neo)adjuvant setting and compared these to decisions taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Results: Comparing the positive and negative decisions within SMC between July 2017 and December 2021, the approval rates were with 66.7% lower for (neo)adjuvant indications versus 88.4% in the metastatic and advanced indications. While the approval rates for metastatic and advanced new active substances (NAS) applications were similar at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA, they were lower for (neo)adjuvant applications at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA. The underlying reason in all cases with divergent decisions at SMC as compared to EMA and FDA was that no overall survival benefit as compared to control arm has been observed in the submitted data package. Conclusion: Approval and consensus decision rates at SMC in comparison to EMA and FDA were lower for (neo)adjuvant indications but not for advanced and metastastic NAS oncology indications.

oncology

Avoiding Rash Decisions

Pros and Cons in Medical Decision Making

Getting patients ready for “in the moment” decisions

Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Decision-making and safety in anesthesiology

Reflexive control in emergency medicine

Avoiding Undesired Choices Using Intelligent Adaptive Systems

Reviewers for the Journal, July–December 2023

Decision-Making for Preventive Interventions in Asymptomatic Patients

Decision fatigue: less is more when making choices with patients.

Engaging patient partners in state-of-the-art allergy care: Finding balance when discussing risk

High Levels of Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret When Making Decisions About Biologics

Improving shared health decision making for children and adolescents with chronic illness: A narrative literature review

Being Well while Doing Well

Emergency decision-making under an uncertain time limit

Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information

Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

Judgement and Decision Making in Clinical and Return-to-Sports Decision Making: A Narrative Review

The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment

A Swell Diagnosis

Decision-Making at Swissmedic, the Swiss Regulatory Agency, with a Focus on (Neo)adjuvant Cancer Treatments