18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Are more experienced clinicians better able to tolerate uncertainty and manage risks? A vignette study of doctors in three NHS emergency departments in England

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Risk aversion among junior doctors that manifests as greater intervention (ordering of tests, diagnostic procedures and so on) has been proposed as one of the possible causes for increased pressure in emergency departments (EDs). Here we tested the prediction that doctors with more experience would be more tolerant of uncertainty and therefore less risk-averse in decision making.

          Methods

          In this cross-sectional, vignette-based study, doctors working in three EDs were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring experience (length of service in EDs), reactions to uncertainty (Gerrity et al, 1995) and risk aversion (responses about the appropriateness of patient management decisions).

          Results

          Data from 90 doctors were analysed. Doctors had worked in the ED for between 5 weeks and 21 years. We found a large association between experience and risk aversion so that more experienced clinicians made less risk-averse decisions (r=0.47, p<0.001). We also found a large association between experience and reactions to uncertainty (r=−0.50, p<0.001), with more experienced doctors being much more at ease with uncertainty. Mediation analyses indicated that tolerance of uncertainty partially mediated the relationship between experience and lower risk aversion, explaining about a quarter of the effect.

          Conclusion

          While we might be tempted to conclude from this research that experience and the ability to tolerate uncertainty lead to positive outcomes for patients (less risk-averse management strategies and higher levels of safety netting), what we are unable to conclude from this design is that these less risk-averse strategies improve patient safety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

          Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tolerance of uncertainty: Conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare.

            Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is an important, well-studied phenomenon in health care and many other important domains of life, yet its conceptualization and measurement by researchers in various disciplines have varied substantially and its essential nature remains unclear.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Naturalistic decision making.

              Gary Klein (2008)
              This article describes the origins and contributions of the naturalistic decision making (NDM) research approach. NDM research emerged in the 1980s to study how people make decisions in real-world settings. The findings and methods used by NDM researchers are presented along with their implications. The NDM framework emphasizes the role of experience in enabling people to rapidly categorize situations to make effective decisions. The NDM focus on field settings and its interest in complex conditions provide insights for human factors practitioners about ways to improve performance. The NDM approach has been used to improve performance through revisions of military doctrine, training that is focused on decision requirements, and the development of information technologies to support decision making and related cognitive functions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ Qual Saf
                qhc
                bmjqs
                BMJ Quality & Safety
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-5415
                2044-5423
                May 2019
                6 February 2019
                : 28
                : 5
                : 382-388
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentInstitute of Psychological Sciences , University of Leeds , Leeds, UK
                [2 ] departmentQuality and Safety Research , Bradford Institute for Health Research , Bradford, UK
                [3 ] departmentSchool of Psychology , University of Leeds , Leeds, UK
                [4 ] departmentSchool of Health and Related Research , University of Sheffield , Sheffield, UK
                [5 ] departmentAccident and Emergency , Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Bradford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Rebecca Lawton, Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; r.j.lawton@ 123456leeds.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5832-402X
                Article
                bmjqs-2018-008390
                10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008390
                6560462
                30728187
                d07891f3-2496-461e-a06e-e4ae6cb3dce8
                Copyright @ 2019

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History
                : 29 May 2018
                : 07 November 2018
                : 08 November 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Patient Safety Translational Research Centre;
                Funded by: NIHR CLAHRC;
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                decision making,emergency department,cognitive biases,patient safety
                Public health
                decision making, emergency department, cognitive biases, patient safety

                Comments

                Comment on this article