Abstract
We have created a clinical performance support system that transforms surgical informed consent into an interactive process capable of evolving in response to institution-specified, provider-specified and patient-specified needs. The system functions in several capacities, including: (1) a source of standardized and comprehensive content and format the transmission of procedure-related risk and complications; (2) as expert critique, providing cues in an effort to reduce the effects of biased risk appraisal; (3) captures and archives clinician behavior relating to use, modification and disclosure of standardized knowledge sources; (4) provides just-in-time access to procedural descriptions information relating to risks and complications; (5) captures, archives and makes available to the clinician patient use of procedure-related knowledge resources. By design, the system will be used to assess the relationship between clinician perception and heuristics surrounding risk appraisal and disclosure and patient perceptions based on response to the disclosure process. The system prototype is currently being deployed in a breast surgery unit at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Full text
PDF
Images in this article
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Chapman G. B., Robbins S. J. Cue interaction in human contingency judgment. Mem Cognit. 1990 Sep;18(5):537–545. doi: 10.3758/bf03198486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Curley S. P., Young M. J., Kingry M. J., Yates J. F. Primacy effects in clinical judgments of contingency. Med Decis Making. 1988 Jul-Sep;8(3):216–222. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8800800310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards S. J., Lilford R. J., Thornton J., Hewison J. Informed consent for clinical trials: in search of the "best" method. Soc Sci Med. 1998 Dec;47(11):1825–1840. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00235-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goldberg H. S., Hsu C., Law V., Safran C. Validation of clinical problems using a UMLS-based semantic parser. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:805–809. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lidz C. W., Meisel A., Osterweis M., Holden J. L., Marx J. H., Munetz M. R. Barriers to informed consent. Ann Intern Med. 1983 Oct;99(4):539–543. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-99-4-539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marta J. Whose consent is it anyway? A poststructuralist framing of the person in medical decision-making. Theor Med Bioeth. 1998 Aug;19(4):353–370. doi: 10.1023/a:1009955914018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thompson S. C., Armstrong W., Thomas C. Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: a control heuristic explanation. Psychol Bull. 1998 Mar;123(2):143–161. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ward W. C., Jenkins H. M. The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Can J Psychol. 1965 Sep;19(3):231–241. doi: 10.1037/h0082908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]