Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40084049›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025

Risks to the clinician of risk management: recalled and anticipated consequences of decision-making.

Alexander Challinor, Sahil Bhandari, Sean Boyle, Mark Gabbay, Pete Wilson, Pooja Saini, Rajan Nathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Alexander ChallinorDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Sahil BhandariDepartment of Research and InnovationMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Sean BoyleCheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, United Kingdom.
Mark GabbayDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Pete WilsonCheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, United Kingdom.
Pooja SainiHealth Education North West, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Rajan NathanCheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite extensive literature studying how we make decisions in the face of uncertainty, the empirical study of real-world clinical decision-making in mental health practice remains limited. Decisions in clinical settings are not just made on the basis of clinical factors. A key non-clinical influence on decision making is the clinician's concerns about the 'threat' to themselves from a future adverse incident and the subsequent retrospective scrutiny of their decision-making. A better understanding of non-clinical processes is essential to inform better ways of guiding effective decision-making. More specifically, delineating the nature of this 'threat' process will also inform approaches to patient safety. Aims: The objective of the current study was to delineate consequences recalled and anticipated by mental health clinicians making decisions under uncertainty. Methods: This was an analysis of data arising from six focus group discussions with professionals involved in decisions to admit patients to psychiatric hospitals (consultant psychiatrists, approved mental health practitioners, crisis resolution home treatment teams, and liaison psychiatry practitioners) in one National Health Service Trust, UK. The data were thematically analyzed to identify the nature of 'threat' processes that arise in clinical decision-making. Results: Themes identified included (i) the location of the effect of the anticipated/recalled consequence(s), (ii) the location of the origin of the consequence, and (iii) the nature of the consequence. The recalled and anticipated consequences of decision-making were overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, negative. The consequences were largely perceived to be directed towards the self (i.e., the clinician) and were considered to originate from external scrutiny by peers, organizational leadership, and the patient safety system/processes. Conclusions: The process of making decisions to admit patients to hospital consistently involved the decision-maker's concern with the future consequences for them, either from a prior or future adverse event. The findings of this study, alongside other evidence of the complexity of decision-making, have implications for improving and studying clinical decision-making (and, by extension, patient care and outcomes), patient safety responses, and professional well-being.

Indexed as

decision-makingfearhealthcare servicesinpatientmental healthmental health carepsychiatric care

Identifiers

PMID40084049
PMCPMC11904246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.