Fast and frugal models of clinical judgement in novice and expert physicians

Our objective was to study whether “compensatory” models provide better descriptions of clinical judgment than fast and frugal models, according to expertise and experience. Fifty practitioners appraised 60 vignettes describing a child with an exacerbation of asthma and rated their propensities to admit the child. Linear logistic (LL) models of their judgments were compared with a matching heuristic (MH) model that searched available cues in order of importance for a critical value indicating an admission decision. There was a small difference between the 2 models in the proportion of patients allocated correctly (admit or not-admit decisions), 91.2% and 87.8%, respectively. The proportion allocated correctly by the LL model was lower for consultants than juniors, whereas the MH model performed equally well for both. In this vignette study, neither model provided any better description of judgments made by consultants or by pediatricians compared to other grades and specialties.

Decision making in childhood asthma exacerbation – a clinical judgement analysis

Background: Clinical decisions which impact directly on patient safety and quality of care are made during acute asthma attacks by individual doctors on the basis of their knowledge and experience. These include administration of systemic corticosteroids (CS), oral antibiotics, and admission to hospital. Clinical judgement analysis provides a methodology for comparing decisions between practitioners with different training and experience, and improving decision making. Methods: Stepwise linear regression was used to select clinical cues based on visual analogue scale assessments of the propensity of 62 clinicians to prescribe a short course of oral CS (decision 1), a course of antibiotics (decision 2), and/or admit to hospital (decision 3) for 60 â??paperâ?? patients. Results:When compared by specialty, paediatriciansâ?? models for decision 1 were more likely to include as a cue level of alertness (54% v. 16%); for decision 2 presence of crepitations (49% v. 16%), and less likely to include inhaled CS (8% v. 40%), respiratory rate (0% v. 24%), and air entry (70% v. 100%). When compared to other grades, the models derived for decision 3 by consultants/general practitioners were more likely to include wheeze severity as a cue (39% v. 6%). Conclusions: Clinicians differed in their use of individual cues and the number included in their models. Patient safety and quality of care will benefit from clarification of decision making strategies as general learning points during medical training, in the development of guidelines and care pathways, and by clinicians developing self-awareness of their own preferences.

‘Risk, Politics and the ‘Scientification’ of Political Judgement: Prisoner Release and Conflict Transformation in Northern Ireland’

Drawing on research in Northern Ireland into the process of release under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, this article explores the identification and classification of risk in relation to prisoners released early under the Sentences (NI) Act. The main argument is that conflict, post-conflict and transitional conditions expose more starkly the political underpinnings of risk-management strategy and the article demonstrates the particular variant of Politicized Risk Assessment (PRA) recently used in the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland