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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |