Cargando…

Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions. METHODS: This study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramos, João Gabriel Rosa, Ranzani, Otavio Tavares, Dias, Roger Daglius, Forte, Daniel Neves
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8275078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34231802
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20210029
_version_ 1783721656754110464
author Ramos, João Gabriel Rosa
Ranzani, Otavio Tavares
Dias, Roger Daglius
Forte, Daniel Neves
author_facet Ramos, João Gabriel Rosa
Ranzani, Otavio Tavares
Dias, Roger Daglius
Forte, Daniel Neves
author_sort Ramos, João Gabriel Rosa
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions. METHODS: This study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts. RESULTS: We analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61). CONCLUSION: Intensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8275078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82750782021-07-16 Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE) Ramos, João Gabriel Rosa Ranzani, Otavio Tavares Dias, Roger Daglius Forte, Daniel Neves Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Original Article OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions. METHODS: This study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts. RESULTS: We analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61). CONCLUSION: Intensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies. Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8275078/ /pubmed/34231802 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20210029 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ramos, João Gabriel Rosa
Ranzani, Otavio Tavares
Dias, Roger Daglius
Forte, Daniel Neves
Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
title Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
title_full Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
title_fullStr Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
title_full_unstemmed Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
title_short Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
title_sort impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (v-triage)
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8275078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34231802
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20210029
work_keys_str_mv AT ramosjoaogabrielrosa impactofnonclinicalfactorsonintensivecareunitadmissiondecisionsavignettebasedrandomizedtrialvtriage
AT ranzaniotaviotavares impactofnonclinicalfactorsonintensivecareunitadmissiondecisionsavignettebasedrandomizedtrialvtriage
AT diasrogerdaglius impactofnonclinicalfactorsonintensivecareunitadmissiondecisionsavignettebasedrandomizedtrialvtriage
AT fortedanielneves impactofnonclinicalfactorsonintensivecareunitadmissiondecisionsavignettebasedrandomizedtrialvtriage