OBJECTIVES: To generate consensus among dermatologists on the content of an outpatient discharge checklist, to create one and to seek clinicians' opinions on its usefulness.
METHODS: Seventeen consultant dermatologists from five National Health Service trusts completed a 72-item Delphi questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate each item for importance in contributing to a high-quality discharge decision. Eighteen clinicians completed a questionnaire evaluating checklist use.
RESULTS: Consensus was determined when ≥ 75% of consultants rated an item 'very important' or 'important'. There was strong inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0·958) and fair inter-rater agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0·269). There were 26 consensus-agreed items, condensed to 13 that formed the 'traffic-light' checklist. These are disease-related issues (diagnostic certainty, disease severity, treatment appropriateness, patient manageable in primary care, patient's benefit from follow-up), patient empowerment issues (understanding diagnosis and treatment outcome, having a clear plan, treatment side-effects, ability to self-manage) and addressing concerns (patient concerns, easy reaccess to secondary care, whether patient and clinician are happy with the decision). Twelve clinicians (67%) found the checklist useful, 11 (61%) wanted to use it in future, 10 (56%) thought it was useful for training and three (17%) said it helped their thinking. Clinicians suggested its use for auditing and for training clinicians and administrators.
CONCLUSIONS: Items were identified to create an outpatient discharge information checklist, which demonstrated high acceptability.
METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.
RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between critical care nurses' decision-making and leadership styles in hospitals has been widely studied, but the influence of cognitive bias on decision-making and leadership styles in critical care environments remains poorly understood, particularly in Jordan.
DESIGN: Two-phase mixed methods sequential explanatory design and grounded theory.
SETTING: critical care unit, Prince Hamza Hospital, Jordan. Participant sampling: convenience sampling Phase 1 (quantitative, n = 96), purposive sampling Phase 2 (qualitative, n = 20).
METHODS: Pilot tested quantitative survey of 96 critical care nurses in 2012. Qualitative in-depth interviews, informed by quantitative results, with 20 critical care nurses in 2013. Descriptive and simple linear regression quantitative data analyses. Thematic (constant comparative) qualitative data analysis.
RESULTS: Quantitative - correlations found between rationality and cognitive bias, rationality and task-oriented leadership styles, cognitive bias and democratic communication styles and cognitive bias and task-oriented leadership styles. Qualitative - 'being competent', 'organizational structures', 'feeling self-confident' and 'being supported' in the work environment identified as key factors influencing critical care nurses' cognitive bias in decision-making and leadership styles. Two-way impact (strengthening and weakening) of cognitive bias in decision-making and leadership styles on critical care nurses' practice performance.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to heighten critical care nurses' consciousness of cognitive bias in decision-making and leadership styles and its impact and to develop organization-level strategies to increase non-biased decision-making.
DESIGN: A prospective study.
SETTING: A tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
POPULATION: A cohort of 193 term nulliparous women with intact membranes.
METHODS: Prior to labour induction, cervical fluid was obtained via a vaginal speculum and tested for IGFBP-1, followed by TVUS and finally Bishop score. After each assessment the procedure-related pain was scored from 0 to 10. Cut-off values for Bishop score and cervical length were obtained from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of starting induction.
RESULTS: Bedside IGFBP-1 testing is better tolerated than Bishop score, but is less well tolerated than TVUS [median (interquartile range) of pain scores: 5 (4-5) versus 6 (5-7) versus 3 (2-3), respectively; P < 0.001]. IGFBP-1 independently predicted vaginal delivery (adjusted odds ratio, AOR 5.5; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 2.3-12.9) and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction (AOR 4.9; 95% CI 2.1-11.6) after controlling for Bishop score (≥4 or ≥5), cervical length (≤29 or ≤27 mm), and other significant characteristics for which the Bishop score and TVUS were not predictive of vaginal delivery after adjustment. IGFBP-1 has 81% sensitivity, 59% specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 82 and 58%, respectively, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.0 and 0.3 for vaginal delivery, respectively.
CONCLUSION: IGFBP-1 better predicted vaginal delivery than BS or TVUS, and may help guide decision making regarding labour induction in nulliparous women.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: IGFBP-1: a stronger independent predictor of labour induction success than Bishop score or cervical sonography.
METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.
RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.
BACKGROUND: Critical thinking is currently considered as an essential component of nurses' professional judgement and clinical decision-making. If confirmed, nursing curricula may be revised emphasising on critical thinking with the expectation to improve clinical decision-making and thus better health care.
DESIGN: Integrated literature review.
METHODS: The integrative review was carried out after a comprehensive literature search using electronic databases Ovid, EBESCO MEDLINE, EBESCO CINAHL, PROQuest and Internet search engine Google Scholar. Two hundred and 22 articles from January 1980 to end of 2015 were retrieved. All studies evaluating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, published in English language with nurses or nursing students as the study population, were included. No qualitative studies were found investigating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, while 10 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool. As a result, one study was excluded due to a low-quality score, with the remaining nine accepted for this review.
RESULTS: Four of nine studies established a positive relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making. Another five studies did not demonstrate a significant correlation. The lack of refinement in studies' design and instrumentation were arguably the main reasons for the inconsistent results.
CONCLUSIONS: Research studies yielded contradictory results as regard to the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making; therefore, the evidence is not convincing. Future quantitative studies should have representative sample size, use critical thinking measurement tools related to the healthcare sector and evaluate the predisposition of test takers towards their willingness and ability to think. There is also a need for qualitative studies to provide a fresh approach in exploring the relationship between these variables uncovering currently unknown contributing factors.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review confirmed that evidence to support the existence of relationships between critical thinking and clinical decision-making is still unsubstantiated. Therefore, it serves as a call for nurse leaders and nursing academics to produce quality studies in order to firmly support or reject the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant correlation between critical thinking and clinical decision-making.
METHODS: Accident-related autopsy reports were obtained from one of the largest hospital in Kuala Lumpur. These reports belong to nine different accident-related causes of death. Master feature vector was prepared by extracting features from the collected autopsy reports by using unigram with lexical categorization. This master feature vector was used to detect cause of death [according to internal classification of disease version 10 (ICD-10) classification system] through five automated feature selection schemes, proposed expert-driven approach, five subset sizes of features, and five machine learning classifiers. Model performance was evaluated using precisionM, recallM, F-measureM, accuracy, and area under ROC curve. Four baselines were used to compare the results with the proposed system.
RESULTS: Random forest and J48 decision models parameterized using expert-driven feature selection yielded the highest evaluation measure approaching (85% to 90%) for most metrics by using a feature subset size of 30. The proposed system also showed approximately 14% to 16% improvement in the overall accuracy compared with the existing techniques and four baselines.
CONCLUSION: The proposed system is feasible and practical to use for automatic classification of ICD-10-related cause of death from autopsy reports. The proposed system assists pathologists to accurately and rapidly determine underlying cause of death based on autopsy findings. Furthermore, the proposed expert-driven feature selection approach and the findings are generally applicable to other kinds of plaintext clinical reports.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
AIM: To understand whether critical care nurses' critical thinking disposition affects their clinical decision-making skills.
METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study in which Malay and English translations of the Short Form-Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory-Chinese Version (SF-CTDI-CV) and the Clinical Decision-making Nursing Scale (CDMNS) were used to collect data from 113 nurses working in seven critical care units of a tertiary hospital on the east coast of Malaysia. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling in October 2015.
RESULTS: Critical care nurses perceived both their critical thinking disposition and decision-making skills to be high, with a total score of 71.5 and a mean of 48.55 for the SF-CTDI-CV, and a total score of 161 and a mean of 119.77 for the CDMNS. One-way ANOVA test results showed that while age, gender, ethnicity, education level and working experience factors significantly impacted critical thinking (p<0.05), only age and working experience significantly impacted clinical decision-making (p<0.05). Pearson's correlation analysis showed a strong and positive relationship between critical care nurses' critical thinking and clinical decision-making (r=0.637, p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: While this small-scale study has shown a relationship exists between critical care nurses' critical thinking disposition and clinical decision-making in one hospital, further investigation using the same measurement tools is needed into this relationship in diverse clinical contexts and with greater numbers of participants. Critical care nurses' perceived high level of critical thinking and decision-making also needs further investigation.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving PCP with ≥1-year working experience in Malaysian primary care settings. An adapted and validated 25-item FH-KAP questionnaire was disseminated during primary care courses. Total score for each domain was calculated by summing-up the correct responses, converted into percentage scores. Normality distribution was examined and comparisons of mean/median percentage scores were made between the two groups of PCP.
RESULTS: A total of 372 PCP completed the questionnaire. Regarding knowledge, 77.7% correctly defined FH. However, only 8.3% correctly identified coronary artery disease risk in untreated FH. The mean percentage knowledge score was significantly higher in PCP-PG-Qual compared to PCP-noPG-Qual (48.9, SD ± 13.92 vs. 35.2, SD ± 14.13), t(370) = 8.66, p