Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37283820›Full record

ArticleThe Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society2020

Decision-making in the ICU: An analysis of the ICU admission decision-making process using a '20 Questions' approach.

P D Gopalan, S Pershad, B J Pillay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Identifying ICU admission decision patterns in a '20-questions game' approach using network analysis.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

P D GopalanDiscipline of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3816-1171
S PershadDiscipline of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
B J PillayDepartment of Behavioural Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1555-0753

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Deciding to admit a patient into the intensive care unit (ICU) is a high-stakes, high-stress, time-sensitive process. Elucidating the complexities of these decisions can contribute to a more efficient, effective process. Objectives: To explore physicians' strategic thought processes in ICU triage decisions and identify important factors. Methods: Practitioners (N=29) were asked to decide on ICU referrals of two hypothetic cases using a modified '20 Questions' approach. Demographic data, decisions when full information was available, feedback on questions, rating of factors previously identified as important and influence of faith and personality traits were explored. Results: Of the 735 questions asked, 95.92% were patient related. There were no significant differences in interview variables between the two cases or with regard to presentation order. The overall acceptance rate was 68.96%. Refusals were associated with longer interview times (p=0.014), as were lower ICU bed capacity (p=0.036), advancing age of the practitioner (p=0.040) and a higher faith score (p=0.004). Faith score correlated positively with the number of questions asked (p=0.028). There were no significant correlations with personality trait stanines. When full information was available, acceptances for Case A decreased (p=0.003) but increased for Case B (p=0.026). The net reclassification improvement index was -0.138 (p=0.248). Non-subspecialists were more likely to change their decisions (p=0.036). Conclusion: Limiting information to what is considered vital by using a '20 Questions' approach and allowing the receiving practitioner to create the decision frame may assist with ICU admission decisions. Practitioners should consider the metacognitive elements of their decision-making. Contributions of the study: The study used a novel approach to explore physicians' decision-making process for admitting a patient to the intensive care unit (ICU). Understanding the main factors that influence the decision-making process will allow for streamlining the referral process, more effective selection of patients most likely to benefit from ICU treatment, and prevent inappropriate admissions into the ICU. The findings can also help to improve data capture tools and encourage practitioners to critically reflect on their decision-making processes.

Indexed as

20 Questionsdecision-makingICU admissionICU admission decisionsICU triage

Identifiers

PMID37283820
PMCPMC10241076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.