Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Samuel K McGowan, Maria-Jose Corrales-Martinez, Teva Brender, Alexander K Smith, Shannen Kim, Krista L Harrison, Hunter Mills, Albert Lee, David Bamman, Julien Cobert
{"title":"Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process.","authors":"Samuel K McGowan, Maria-Jose Corrales-Martinez, Teva Brender, Alexander K Smith, Shannen Kim, Krista L Harrison, Hunter Mills, Albert Lee, David Bamman, Julien Cobert","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241293446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical uncertainty is associated with increased resource utilization, worsened health-related quality of life for patients, and provider burnout, particularly during critical illness. Existing data are limited, because determining uncertainty from notes typically requires manual, qualitative review. We sought to develop a consensus list of descriptors of clinical uncertainty and then, using a thematic analysis approach, describe how respondents consider their use in intensive care unit (ICU) notes, such that future work can extract uncertainty data at scale.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a Delphi consensus study with physicians across multiple institutions nationally who care for critically ill patients or patients with advanced illnesses. Participants were given a definition for clinical uncertainty and collaborated through multiple rounds to determine which words represent uncertainty in clinician notes. We also administered surveys that included open-ended questions to participants about clinical uncertainty. Following derivation of a consensus list, we analyzed participant responses using thematic analysis to understand the role of uncertainty in clinical documentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen physicians participated in at least 2 of the Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved for 44 words or phrases over 5 rounds of the Delphi process. Clinicians described comfort with using uncertainty terms and used them in a variety of ways: documenting and processing the diagnostic thinking process, enlisting help, identifying incomplete information, and practicing transparency to reflect uncertainty that was present.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using a consensus process, we created an uncertainty lexicon that can be used for uncertainty data extraction from the medical record. We demonstrate that physicians, particularly in the ICU, are comfortable with uncertainty and document uncertainty terms frequently to convey the complexity and ambiguity that is pervasive in critical illness.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Question: What words do physicians caring for critically ill patients use to document clinical uncertainty, and why?Findings: A consensus list of 44 words or phrases was identified by a group of experts. Physicians expressed comfort with using these words in the electronic health record.Meaning: Physicians are comfortable with uncertainty words and document them frequently to convey the complexity and ambiguity that is pervasive in critical illness.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X241293446"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241293446","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical uncertainty is associated with increased resource utilization, worsened health-related quality of life for patients, and provider burnout, particularly during critical illness. Existing data are limited, because determining uncertainty from notes typically requires manual, qualitative review. We sought to develop a consensus list of descriptors of clinical uncertainty and then, using a thematic analysis approach, describe how respondents consider their use in intensive care unit (ICU) notes, such that future work can extract uncertainty data at scale.

Design: We conducted a Delphi consensus study with physicians across multiple institutions nationally who care for critically ill patients or patients with advanced illnesses. Participants were given a definition for clinical uncertainty and collaborated through multiple rounds to determine which words represent uncertainty in clinician notes. We also administered surveys that included open-ended questions to participants about clinical uncertainty. Following derivation of a consensus list, we analyzed participant responses using thematic analysis to understand the role of uncertainty in clinical documentation.

Results: Nineteen physicians participated in at least 2 of the Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved for 44 words or phrases over 5 rounds of the Delphi process. Clinicians described comfort with using uncertainty terms and used them in a variety of ways: documenting and processing the diagnostic thinking process, enlisting help, identifying incomplete information, and practicing transparency to reflect uncertainty that was present.

Conclusions: Using a consensus process, we created an uncertainty lexicon that can be used for uncertainty data extraction from the medical record. We demonstrate that physicians, particularly in the ICU, are comfortable with uncertainty and document uncertainty terms frequently to convey the complexity and ambiguity that is pervasive in critical illness.

Highlights: Question: What words do physicians caring for critically ill patients use to document clinical uncertainty, and why?Findings: A consensus list of 44 words or phrases was identified by a group of experts. Physicians expressed comfort with using these words in the electronic health record.Meaning: Physicians are comfortable with uncertainty words and document them frequently to convey the complexity and ambiguity that is pervasive in critical illness.

不明确的轨迹和不确定的益处:利用德尔菲共识过程创建危重或晚期患者临床不确定性词典。
背景:临床不确定性与资源利用率增加、患者健康相关生活质量下降以及医疗服务提供者的职业倦怠有关,尤其是在危重病人期间。现有数据很有限,因为从病历中确定不确定性通常需要人工定性审查。我们试图制定一份临床不确定性描述的共识列表,然后使用主题分析方法描述受访者如何考虑在重症监护病房(ICU)病历中使用这些描述,以便今后的工作能够大规模提取不确定性数据:设计:我们与全国多家机构的重症患者或晚期患者护理医生进行了德尔菲共识研究。我们向参与者提供了临床不确定性的定义,并通过多轮合作确定哪些词语代表临床医生笔记中的不确定性。我们还对参与者进行了调查,其中包括有关临床不确定性的开放式问题。在得出共识列表后,我们使用主题分析法对参与者的回答进行了分析,以了解不确定性在临床记录中的作用:19名医生至少参加了两轮德尔菲讨论。在 5 轮德尔菲过程中,就 44 个单词或短语达成了共识。临床医生表示对使用不确定性术语感到满意,并以多种方式使用这些术语:记录和处理诊断思维过程、寻求帮助、识别不完整信息以及实行透明化以反映存在的不确定性:结论:通过协商一致的程序,我们创建了一个不确定性词汇表,可用于从医疗记录中提取不确定性数据。我们证明,医生,尤其是重症监护室的医生,能够从容应对不确定性,并经常记录不确定性术语,以表达危重病中普遍存在的复杂性和模糊性:重点: 问题:护理危重病人的医生用什么词来记录临床不确定性,为什么?专家组确定了一份包含 44 个单词或短语的共识清单。医生们对在电子健康记录中使用这些词语表示满意:医生对不确定性词语的使用很得心应手,并经常记录这些词语,以表达危重病中普遍存在的复杂性和模糊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信