ArticlePloS one2025
Expert decision-making in clinicians: An auto-analytic ethnographic study of operational decision-making in urgent care.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conceptualise the cognitive processes of early expert decision-making in urgent care.
backgroundExpert clinicians in the UK frequently determine suitable urgent care patient pathways via telephone triage. This strategy is promoted by policymakers but how it is performed, and its effectiveness has not been evaluated. Evaluation of early senior decision-making requires knowledge of decision-processes, influences, and goals. Previous research has focused on diagnostic decision-making and rarely studied clinicians in the field.
methodWe triangulated analytic autoethnography of early expert decision-making with focused ethnography of experts and trainee doctors performing the task. The study took place in a medium-sized Acute Medical Unit which provided internal medical emergency care for a mixed urban and rural population in the UK. A grounded theoretical model of expert decision-making was created via Gioia Methodology. Decision types were categorised to identify differences in solutions as well as decision processes.
resultsThe hallmarks of intuitive decision-making were found in most expert decisions. Experts made intuitive use of pattern-matching to extract key data from large volumes of information which triggered the spontaneous manifestation of solutions. Solutions were holistic and usually solitary. Upon manifestation solutions were consciously tested for viability with emotional affect playing a key role. Expert solutions were previously applied ones but were frequently entirely novel. Novel solution generation was not a feature of trainee decisions but moments of intuition were. Expert goals varied between optimal care for individual patients, system-wide efficiency, and equity of care. The decision environment had a large influence upon experts.
conclusionExpert clinicians employ intuitive decision-making supported by rational analysis in early urgent care decision-making. Expert solutions generated in this manner are pragmatic rather than optimal, context dependent, and seek to achieve goals which vary from moment-moment. Findings are crucial to inform research evaluating the effectiveness of early expert decision-making in urgent care as it is a high cost strategy. They also have implications for methodological approaches in future studies of expert clinical decision-making, developing artificial expert systems, and clinician training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.