schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Nurses’ critical event risk assessments: a judgement analysis

To explore and explain nurses’ use of readily available clinical information when deciding whether a patient is at risk of a critical event. Half of inpatients who suffer a cardiac arrest have documented but unacted upon clinical signs of deterioration in the 24 hours prior to the event. Nurses appe... Full description

Journal Title: Journal of Clinical Nursing February 2009, Vol.18(4), pp.601-612
Main Author: Thompson, Carl
Other Authors: Bucknall, Tracey , Estabrookes, Carole A , Hutchinson, Alison , Fraser, Kim , De Vos, Rien , Binnecade, Jan , Barrat, Gez , Saunders, Jane
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language:
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0962-1067 ; E-ISSN: 1365-2702 ; DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: wj10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
title: Nurses’ critical event risk assessments: a judgement analysis
format: Article
creator:
  • Thompson, Carl
  • Bucknall, Tracey
  • Estabrookes, Carole A
  • Hutchinson, Alison
  • Fraser, Kim
  • De Vos, Rien
  • Binnecade, Jan
  • Barrat, Gez
  • Saunders, Jane
subjects:
  • Acute Care
  • Decision Making
  • Judgment
  • Judgment Analysis
ispartof: Journal of Clinical Nursing, February 2009, Vol.18(4), pp.601-612
description: To explore and explain nurses’ use of readily available clinical information when deciding whether a patient is at risk of a critical event. Half of inpatients who suffer a cardiac arrest have documented but unacted upon clinical signs of deterioration in the 24 hours prior to the event. Nurses appear to be both misinterpreting and mismanaging the nursing‐knowledge ‘basics’ such as heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygenation. Whilst many medical interventions originate from nurses, up to 26% of nurses’ responses to abnormal signs result in delays of between one and three hours. A double system judgement analysis using Brunswik's lens model of cognition was undertaken with 245 Dutch, UK, Canadian and Australian acute care nurses. Nurses were asked to judge the likelihood of a critical event, ‘at‐risk’ status, and whether they would intervene in response to 50 computer‐presented clinical scenarios in which data on heart rate, systolic blood pressure, urine output, oxygen saturation, conscious level and oxygenation support were varied. Nurses were also presented with a protocol recommendation and also placed under time pressure for some of the scenarios. The ecological criterion was the predicted level of risk from the Modified Early Warning Score assessments of 232 UK acute care inpatients. Despite receiving identical information, nurses varied considerably in their risk assessments. The differences can be partly explained by variability in weightings given to information. Time and protocol recommendations were given more weighting than clinical information for key dichotomous choices such as classifying a patient as ‘at risk’ and deciding to intervene. Nurses’ weighting of cues did not mirror the same information's contribution to risk in real patients. Nurses synthesized information in non‐linear ways that contributed little to decisional accuracy. The low‐moderate achievement () statistics suggests that nurses’ assessments of risk were largely inaccurate; these assessments were applied consistently among ‘patients’ (scenarios). Critical care experience was associated with estimates of risk, but not with the decision to intervene. Nurses overestimated the risk and the need to intervene in simulated paper patients at risk of a critical event. This average response masked considerable variation in risk predictions, the need for action and the weighting afforded to the information they had available to them. Nurses did not make use of the linear reasoning re
language:
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0962-1067 ; E-ISSN: 1365-2702 ; DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0962-1067
  • 09621067
  • 1365-2702
  • 13652702
url: Link


@attributes
ID1772744823
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
sourceidwj
recordidTN_wj10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
sourcesystemPC
display
typearticle
titleNurses’ critical event risk assessments: a judgement analysis
creatorThompson, Carl ; Bucknall, Tracey ; Estabrookes, Carole A ; Hutchinson, Alison ; Fraser, Kim ; De Vos, Rien ; Binnecade, Jan ; Barrat, Gez ; Saunders, Jane
ispartofJournal of Clinical Nursing, February 2009, Vol.18(4), pp.601-612
identifier
subjectAcute Care ; Decision Making ; Judgment ; Judgment Analysis
descriptionTo explore and explain nurses’ use of readily available clinical information when deciding whether a patient is at risk of a critical event. Half of inpatients who suffer a cardiac arrest have documented but unacted upon clinical signs of deterioration in the 24 hours prior to the event. Nurses appear to be both misinterpreting and mismanaging the nursing‐knowledge ‘basics’ such as heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygenation. Whilst many medical interventions originate from nurses, up to 26% of nurses’ responses to abnormal signs result in delays of between one and three hours. A double system judgement analysis using Brunswik's lens model of cognition was undertaken with 245 Dutch, UK, Canadian and Australian acute care nurses. Nurses were asked to judge the likelihood of a critical event, ‘at‐risk’ status, and whether they would intervene in response to 50 computer‐presented clinical scenarios in which data on heart rate, systolic blood pressure, urine output, oxygen saturation, conscious level and oxygenation support were varied. Nurses were also presented with a protocol recommendation and also placed under time pressure for some of the scenarios. The ecological criterion was the predicted level of risk from the Modified Early Warning Score assessments of 232 UK acute care inpatients. Despite receiving identical information, nurses varied considerably in their risk assessments. The differences can be partly explained by variability in weightings given to information. Time and protocol recommendations were given more weighting than clinical information for key dichotomous choices such as classifying a patient as ‘at risk’ and deciding to intervene. Nurses’ weighting of cues did not mirror the same information's contribution to risk in real patients. Nurses synthesized information in non‐linear ways that contributed little to decisional accuracy. The low‐moderate achievement () statistics suggests that nurses’ assessments of risk were largely inaccurate; these assessments were applied consistently among ‘patients’ (scenarios). Critical care experience was associated with estimates of risk, but not with the decision to intervene. Nurses overestimated the risk and the need to intervene in simulated paper patients at risk of a critical event. This average response masked considerable variation in risk predictions, the need for action and the weighting afforded to the information they had available to them. Nurses did not make use of the linear reasoning required for accurate risk predictions in this task. They also failed to employ any unique knowledge that could be shown to make them more accurate. The influence of time pressure and protocol recommendations depended on the kind of judgement faced suggesting then that knowing more about the types of decisions nurses face may influence information use. Practice developers and educators need to pay attention to the quality of nurses’ clinical experience as well as the quantity when developing judgement expertise in nurses. Intuitive unaided decision making in the assessment of risk may not be as accurate as supported decision making. Practice developers and educators should consider teaching nurses normative rules for revising probabilities (even subjective ones) such as Bayes’ rule for diagnostic or assessment judgements and also that linear ways of thinking, in which decision support may help, may be useful for many choices that nurses face. Nursing needs to separate the rhetoric of ‘holism’ and ‘expertise’ from the science of predictive validity, accuracy and competence in judgement and decision making.
source
version2
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
search
creatorcontrib
0Thompson, Carl
1Bucknall, Tracey
2Estabrookes, Carole A
3Hutchinson, Alison
4Fraser, Kim
5De Vos, Rien
6Binnecade, Jan
7Barrat, Gez
8Saunders, Jane
titleNurses’ critical event risk assessments: a judgement analysis
descriptionTo explore and explain nurses’ use of readily available clinical information when deciding whether a patient is at risk of a critical event. Half of inpatients who suffer a cardiac arrest have documented but unacted upon clinical signs of deterioration in the 24 hours prior to the event. Nurses appear to be both misinterpreting and mismanaging the nursing‐knowledge ‘basics’ such as heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygenation. Whilst many medical interventions originate from nurses, up to 26% of nurses’ responses to abnormal signs result in delays of between one and three hours. A double system judgement analysis using Brunswik's lens model of cognition was undertaken with 245 Dutch, UK, Canadian and Australian acute care nurses. Nurses were asked to judge the likelihood of a critical event, ‘at‐risk’ status, and whether they would intervene in response to 50 computer‐presented clinical scenarios in which data on heart rate, systolic blood pressure, urine output, oxygen saturation, conscious level and oxygenation support were varied. Nurses were also presented with a protocol recommendation and also placed under time pressure for some of the scenarios. The ecological criterion was the predicted level of risk from the Modified Early Warning Score assessments of 232 UK acute care inpatients. Despite receiving identical information, nurses varied considerably in their risk assessments. The differences can be partly explained by variability in weightings given to information. Time and protocol recommendations were given more weighting than clinical information for key dichotomous choices such as classifying a patient as ‘at risk’ and deciding to intervene. Nurses’ weighting of cues did not mirror the same information's contribution to risk in real patients. Nurses synthesized information in non‐linear ways that contributed little to decisional accuracy. The low‐moderate achievement () statistics suggests that nurses’ assessments of risk were largely inaccurate; these assessments were applied consistently among ‘patients’ (scenarios). Critical care experience was associated with estimates of risk, but not with the decision to intervene. Nurses overestimated the risk and the need to intervene in simulated paper patients at risk of a critical event. This average response masked considerable variation in risk predictions, the need for action and the weighting afforded to the information they had available to them. Nurses did not make use of the linear reasoning required for accurate risk predictions in this task. They also failed to employ any unique knowledge that could be shown to make them more accurate. The influence of time pressure and protocol recommendations depended on the kind of judgement faced suggesting then that knowing more about the types of decisions nurses face may influence information use. Practice developers and educators need to pay attention to the quality of nurses’ clinical experience as well as the quantity when developing judgement expertise in nurses. Intuitive unaided decision making in the assessment of risk may not be as accurate as supported decision making. Practice developers and educators should consider teaching nurses normative rules for revising probabilities (even subjective ones) such as Bayes’ rule for diagnostic or assessment judgements and also that linear ways of thinking, in which decision support may help, may be useful for many choices that nurses face. Nursing needs to separate the rhetoric of ‘holism’ and ‘expertise’ from the science of predictive validity, accuracy and competence in judgement and decision making.
subject
0Acute Care
1Decision Making
2Judgment
3Judgment Analysis
general
0Blackwell Publishing Ltd
110.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
2Wiley Online Library
sourceidwj
recordidwj10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
issn
00962-1067
109621067
21365-2702
313652702
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2009
addtitleJournal of Clinical Nursing
searchscope
0wj
1wiley
scope
0wj
1wiley
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pages]
sort
titleNurses’ critical event risk assessments: a judgement analysis
authorThompson, Carl ; Bucknall, Tracey ; Estabrookes, Carole A ; Hutchinson, Alison ; Fraser, Kim ; De Vos, Rien ; Binnecade, Jan ; Barrat, Gez ; Saunders, Jane
creationdate20090200
facets
frbrgroupid9093258384518816953
frbrtype5
creationdate2009
topic
0Acute Care
1Decision Making
2Judgment
3Judgment Analysis
collectionWiley Online Library
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Thompson, Carl
1Bucknall, Tracey
2Estabrookes, Carole A
3Hutchinson, Alison
4Fraser, Kim
5De Vos, Rien
6Binnecade, Jan
7Barrat, Gez
8Saunders, Jane
jtitleJournal of Clinical Nursing
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Thompson
1Bucknall
2Estabrookes
3Hutchinson
4Fraser
5De Vos
6Binnecade
7Barrat
8Saunders
aufirst
0Carl
1Tracey
2Carole A
3Alison
4Kim
5Rien
6Jan
7Gez
8Jane
au
0Thompson, Carl
1Bucknall, Tracey
2Estabrookes, Carole A
3Hutchinson, Alison
4Fraser, Kim
5De Vos, Rien
6Binnecade, Jan
7Barrat, Gez
8Saunders, Jane
atitleNurses’ critical event risk assessments: a judgement analysis
jtitleJournal of Clinical Nursing
risdate200902
volume18
issue4
spage601
epage612
issn0962-1067
eissn1365-2702
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractTo explore and explain nurses’ use of readily available clinical information when deciding whether a patient is at risk of a critical event. Half of inpatients who suffer a cardiac arrest have documented but unacted upon clinical signs of deterioration in the 24 hours prior to the event. Nurses appear to be both misinterpreting and mismanaging the nursing‐knowledge ‘basics’ such as heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygenation. Whilst many medical interventions originate from nurses, up to 26% of nurses’ responses to abnormal signs result in delays of between one and three hours. A double system judgement analysis using Brunswik's lens model of cognition was undertaken with 245 Dutch, UK, Canadian and Australian acute care nurses. Nurses were asked to judge the likelihood of a critical event, ‘at‐risk’ status, and whether they would intervene in response to 50 computer‐presented clinical scenarios in which data on heart rate, systolic blood pressure, urine output, oxygen saturation, conscious level and oxygenation support were varied. Nurses were also presented with a protocol recommendation and also placed under time pressure for some of the scenarios. The ecological criterion was the predicted level of risk from the Modified Early Warning Score assessments of 232 UK acute care inpatients. Despite receiving identical information, nurses varied considerably in their risk assessments. The differences can be partly explained by variability in weightings given to information. Time and protocol recommendations were given more weighting than clinical information for key dichotomous choices such as classifying a patient as ‘at risk’ and deciding to intervene. Nurses’ weighting of cues did not mirror the same information's contribution to risk in real patients. Nurses synthesized information in non‐linear ways that contributed little to decisional accuracy. The low‐moderate achievement () statistics suggests that nurses’ assessments of risk were largely inaccurate; these assessments were applied consistently among ‘patients’ (scenarios). Critical care experience was associated with estimates of risk, but not with the decision to intervene. Nurses overestimated the risk and the need to intervene in simulated paper patients at risk of a critical event. This average response masked considerable variation in risk predictions, the need for action and the weighting afforded to the information they had available to them. Nurses did not make use of the linear reasoning required for accurate risk predictions in this task. They also failed to employ any unique knowledge that could be shown to make them more accurate. The influence of time pressure and protocol recommendations depended on the kind of judgement faced suggesting then that knowing more about the types of decisions nurses face may influence information use. Practice developers and educators need to pay attention to the quality of nurses’ clinical experience as well as the quantity when developing judgement expertise in nurses. Intuitive unaided decision making in the assessment of risk may not be as accurate as supported decision making. Practice developers and educators should consider teaching nurses normative rules for revising probabilities (even subjective ones) such as Bayes’ rule for diagnostic or assessment judgements and also that linear ways of thinking, in which decision support may help, may be useful for many choices that nurses face. Nursing needs to separate the rhetoric of ‘holism’ and ‘expertise’ from the science of predictive validity, accuracy and competence in judgement and decision making.
copOxford, UK
pubBlackwell Publishing Ltd
doi10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02191.x
pages601-612
date2009-02