Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 2001 Mar;10(1):4–9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.10.1.4

Improving the quality of surgeons' treatment decisions: a comparison of clinical decision making with a computerised evidence based decision analytical model

D Timmermans 1, H van Bockel 1, J Kievit 1
PMCID: PMC1743418  PMID: 11239137

Abstract

Objectives—The purpose of this study is to demonstrate to what extent an evidence based decision model can improve physicians' decisions and whether a selective use of the decision model is feasible.

Methods—Four experienced vascular surgeons were asked to make a treatment decision for 137 "paper patient" cases with asymptomatic abdominal aneurysms. Their decisions were compared with the optimal treatment as calculated by a computerised evidence based decision analytical model.

Results—Surgeons agreed with the model's advice based on life expectancy in 81% of the cases, and decided to operate in only 12% of the cases for which there was no agreement. Surgeons' decisions differed from the decision model's calculated optimal treatment, in particular, for older patients with aneurysms of intermediate size and with many risk factors, and for younger patients with small aneurysms and few risk factors. Not all these decisions, however, were reported to be more difficult.

Conclusion—Use of a decision analytical model might lead to more appropriate decisions and a better quality of care. Selective use of the decision tool for difficult decisions only would be more efficient but is not yet feasible because reported decision difficulty is not strongly related to disagreement with the decision tool.

Key Words: physicians' decisions; decision support; decision analysis; quality of care

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (178.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. De Mol Van Otterloo J. C., Van Bockel J. H., Steyerberg E. W., Feuth J. D., Weeda H. W., Brand R. The potential of simple clinical information and electrocardiogram to predict mortality of primary elective abdominal aortic reconstruction. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1995 Nov;10(4):470–477. doi: 10.1016/s1078-5884(05)80171-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dryjski M., Driscoll J. L., Blair R. C., McGurrin M. A., Dagher F. J., Ceraolo M. J., O'Donnell, Blackshear W. M., Jr The small abdominal aortic aneurysm: the eternal dilemma. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1994 Apr;35(2):95–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eddy D. M. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Guidelines for policy statements: the explicit approach. JAMA. 1990 Apr 25;263(16):2239-40, 2243. doi: 10.1001/jama.263.16.2239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Feder G., Eccles M., Grol R., Griffiths C., Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: using clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999 Mar 13;318(7185):728–730. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7185.728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Geroulakos G., Nicolaides A. Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms less than five centimetres in diameter: the surgeon's dilemma. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1992 Nov;6(6):616–622. doi: 10.1016/s0950-821x(05)80838-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Glasziou P. P., Irwig L. M. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ. 1995 Nov 18;311(7016):1356–1359. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7016.1356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Grimshaw J. M., Russell I. T. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317–1322. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grimshaw J., Freemantle N., Wallace S., Russell I., Hurwitz B., Watt I., Long A., Sheldon T. Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1995 Mar;4(1):55–64. doi: 10.1136/qshc.4.1.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Harrell F. E., Jr, Califf R. M., Pryor D. B., Lee K. L., Rosati R. A. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA. 1982 May 14;247(18):2543–2546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kleinmuntz B. Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: toward an integrative approach. Psychol Bull. 1990 May;107(3):296–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mason D., Birmingham L., Grubin D. Substance use in remand prisoners: a consecutive case study. BMJ. 1997 Jul 5;315(7099):18–21. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7099.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Protheroe J., Fahey T., Montgomery A. A., Peters T. J. The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. BMJ. 2000 May 20;320(7246):1380–1384. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Steyerberg E. W., Kievit J., de Mol Van Otterloo J. C., van Bockel J. H., Eijkemans M. J., Habbema J. D. Perioperative mortality of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. A clinical prediction rule based on literature and individual patient data. Arch Intern Med. 1995 Oct 9;155(18):1998–2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Woolf S. H., Grol R., Hutchinson A., Eccles M., Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527–530. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES