The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sepsis Fluid Resuscitation Decisions: An Exploratory Survey-Based Study

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
J. Mansoori, B. Clark, E. Havranek, I. Douglas
{"title":"The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sepsis Fluid Resuscitation Decisions: An Exploratory Survey-Based Study","authors":"J. Mansoori, B. Clark, E. Havranek, I. Douglas","doi":"10.1177/23814683221099454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Discordance with well-known sepsis resuscitation guidelines is often attributed to rational assessments of patients at the point of care. Conversely, we sought to explore the impact of choice architecture (i.e., the environment, manner, and behavioral psychology within which options are presented and decisions are made) on decisions to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes. Design We conducted an electronic, survey-based study using a septic shock clinical vignette. Physicians from multiple specialties and training levels at an academic tertiary-care hospital and academic safety-net hospital were randomized to distinct answer sets: control (6 fluid options), time constraint (6 fluid options with a 10-s limit to answer), or choice overload (25 fluid options). The primary outcome was discordance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign fluid resuscitation guidelines. We also measured response times and examined the relationship between each choice architecture intervention group, response time, and guideline discordance. Results A total of 189 of 624 (30.3%) physicians completed the survey. Time spent answering the vignette was reduced in time constraint (9.5 s, interquartile range [IQR] 7.3 s to 10.0 s, P < 0.001) and increased in choice overload (56.8 s, IQR 35.9 s to 86.7 s, P < 0.001) groups compared with control (28.3 s, IQR 20.0 s to 44.6 s). In contrast, the relative risk of guideline discordance was higher in time constraint (2.07, 1.33 to 3.23, P = 0.001) and lower in choice overload (0.75, 0.60, to 0.95, P =0.02) groups. After controlling for time spent reading the vignette, the overall odds of choosing guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced for every additional second spent answering the vignette (OR 0.98, 0.97, to 0.99, P < 0.001). Conclusions Choice architecture may affect fluid resuscitation decisions in sepsis regardless of patient conditions, warranting further investigation in real-world contexts. These effects should be considered when implementing practice guidelines. Highlights Time constrained clinical decision making was associated with increased proportion of guideline-discordant responses and relative risk of failure to prescribe guideline-recommended intravenous fluids using a sepsis clinical vignette. Choice overload increased response times and was associated with decreased proportion of guideline-discordant responses and relative risk of guideline discordance. Physician odds of choosing to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced with increased deliberation as measured by response times. Clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and administrators should consider the effect of choice architecture on clinical decision making and guideline discordance when implementing guidelines for sepsis and other acute care conditions.","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221099454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Discordance with well-known sepsis resuscitation guidelines is often attributed to rational assessments of patients at the point of care. Conversely, we sought to explore the impact of choice architecture (i.e., the environment, manner, and behavioral psychology within which options are presented and decisions are made) on decisions to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes. Design We conducted an electronic, survey-based study using a septic shock clinical vignette. Physicians from multiple specialties and training levels at an academic tertiary-care hospital and academic safety-net hospital were randomized to distinct answer sets: control (6 fluid options), time constraint (6 fluid options with a 10-s limit to answer), or choice overload (25 fluid options). The primary outcome was discordance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign fluid resuscitation guidelines. We also measured response times and examined the relationship between each choice architecture intervention group, response time, and guideline discordance. Results A total of 189 of 624 (30.3%) physicians completed the survey. Time spent answering the vignette was reduced in time constraint (9.5 s, interquartile range [IQR] 7.3 s to 10.0 s, P < 0.001) and increased in choice overload (56.8 s, IQR 35.9 s to 86.7 s, P < 0.001) groups compared with control (28.3 s, IQR 20.0 s to 44.6 s). In contrast, the relative risk of guideline discordance was higher in time constraint (2.07, 1.33 to 3.23, P = 0.001) and lower in choice overload (0.75, 0.60, to 0.95, P =0.02) groups. After controlling for time spent reading the vignette, the overall odds of choosing guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced for every additional second spent answering the vignette (OR 0.98, 0.97, to 0.99, P < 0.001). Conclusions Choice architecture may affect fluid resuscitation decisions in sepsis regardless of patient conditions, warranting further investigation in real-world contexts. These effects should be considered when implementing practice guidelines. Highlights Time constrained clinical decision making was associated with increased proportion of guideline-discordant responses and relative risk of failure to prescribe guideline-recommended intravenous fluids using a sepsis clinical vignette. Choice overload increased response times and was associated with decreased proportion of guideline-discordant responses and relative risk of guideline discordance. Physician odds of choosing to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced with increased deliberation as measured by response times. Clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and administrators should consider the effect of choice architecture on clinical decision making and guideline discordance when implementing guidelines for sepsis and other acute care conditions.
选择结构对脓毒症液体复苏决策的影响:一项基于探索性调查的研究
背景与众所周知的败血症复苏指南的不一致通常归因于在护理点对患者的合理评估。相反,我们试图探索选择结构(即提出选择和做出决策的环境、方式和行为心理学)对规定指导性不一致流体量的决策的影响。设计我们使用感染性休克临床小插曲进行了一项基于调查的电子研究。来自学术三级护理医院和学术安全网医院多个专业和培训水平的医生被随机分配到不同的答案集:对照组(6种液体选项)、时间限制组(6个液体选项,回答时间限制为10秒)或选择超负荷组(25种液体选择)。主要结果与脓毒症存活运动液体复苏指南不一致。我们还测量了反应时间,并检查了每个选择架构干预组、反应时间和指南不一致之间的关系。结果624名医师中有189名(30.3%)完成了调查。与对照组(28.3 s,IQR 20.0 s至44.6 s)相比,时间限制组(9.5 s,四分位间距[IQR]7.3 s至10.0 s,P<0.001)回答小插曲所花费的时间减少,选择过载组(56.8 s,IQR35.9 s至86.7 s,P=0.001)增加。相反,时间限制组的指南不一致的相对风险更高(2.07,1.33-3.23,P=0.001),选择超负荷组的相对风险更低(0.75,0.60-0.95,P=0.02)。在控制了阅读小插曲的时间后,每多花一秒回答小插曲,选择指南不一致液体量的总体几率就会降低(OR 0.98,0.97,至0.99,P<0.001)。结论无论患者情况如何,选择结构都可能影响败血症的液体复苏决策,值得在现实世界中进一步调查。在实施实践指南时应考虑这些影响。亮点时间限制的临床决策与指南不一致反应的比例增加以及使用败血症临床小插曲开具指南推荐的静脉输液失败的相对风险有关。选择超负荷增加了反应时间,并与指南不一致反应的比例和指南不一致的相对风险降低有关。医生选择开指南不一致液体量的几率随着反应时间的增加而降低。临床医生、研究人员、政策制定者和管理人员在实施败血症和其他急性护理条件的指南时,应考虑选择结构对临床决策的影响和指南的不一致性。
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
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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