Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 26, 2023Keywords:
Article Details
Copyright of published material remains in the Authors’ name. This allows authors to use their work for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking permission from the Publisher, subject to properly acknowledging the Journal as the original place of publication.
Authors are free to copy, print and distribute their articles, in full or in part, for teaching activities, and to deposit or include their work in their own personal or institutional database or on-line website. Authors are requested to inform the Journal/Publishers of their desire/intention to include their work in a thesis or dissertation or to republish their work in any derivative form (but not for commercial use).
Material submitted for publication in the SAJCC is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement.
Main Article Content
Decision-making in the ICU: An analysis of the ICU admission decision-making process using a ‘20 Questions’ approach
P D Gopalan
B J Pillay
Abstract
Background. Deciding to admit a patient into the intensive care unit (ICU) is a high-stakes, high-stress, time-sensitive process. Elucidating the complexities of these decisions can contribute to a more efficient, effective process.
Objectives. To explore physicians’ strategic thought processes in ICU triage decisions and identify important factors.
Methods. Practitioners (N=29) were asked to decide on ICU referrals of two hypothetic cases using a modified ‘20 Questions’ approach. Demographic data, decisions when full information was available, feedback on questions, rating of factors previously identified as important and influence of faith and personality traits were explored.
Results. Of the 735 questions asked, 95.92% were patient related. There were no significant differences in interview variables between the two cases or with regard to presentation order. The overall acceptance rate was 68.96%. Refusals were associated with longer interview times (p=0.014), as were lower ICU bed capacity (p=0.036), advancing age of the practitioner (p=0.040) and a higher faith score (p=0.004). Faith score correlated positively with the number of questions asked (p=0.028). There were no significant correlations with personality trait stanines. When full information was available, acceptances for Case A decreased (p=0.003) but increased for Case B (p=0.026). The net reclassification improvement index was –0.138 (p=0.248). Non-subspecialists were more likely to change their decisions (p=0.036).
Conclusion. Limiting information to what is considered vital by using a ‘20 Questions’ approach and allowing the receiving practitioner to create the decision frame may assist with ICU admission decisions. Practitioners should consider the metacognitive elements of their decision-making.
