|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
How Did the Acute Ischemic Heart Disease Predictiue Instrument Reduce Unnecessary Coronary Care Unit Admissions?
Robert A. McNutt, MD
Harry P. Selker, MD, MSPH
The use of the acute ischemic heart disease predictive instrument reduced coronary care unit (CCU) admissions for patients without acute ischemic heart disease by 30%. One hypothesis holds that it reinforced physicians' correctly low estimates of the probability of acute ischemia, supporting a decision against CCU admission, another that it lowered phy sicians' over-high probability estimates for acute ischemia so that CCU admission was felt to be unnecessary. The authors asked 86 physicians to estimate the probability of acute ischemia for each of three study cases and to decide on CCU admission. For the low- probability case, the mean of physicians' probability estimates for acute ischemia was 46%, vs. the predictive instrument's calculated probability of 19% (p < 0.00001), a 142% over- estimation by the physicians. For the medium-probability case, the mean of physicians' estimates was 54%, vs. the calculated probability of 58% (not significant). For the high- probability case, the mean of physicians' estimates was 82%, vs. the calculated probability of 78% (not significant). All cases for which physicians considered not admitting to the CCU corresponded to their probability estimates of acute ischemia's being in a threshold range of approximately 10 to 30%. These results support the hypothesis that the mechanism by which the predictive instrument reduces unnecessary CCU admissions is by downward correction of physicians' overly-high suspicions of acute cardiac ischemia into a threshold range for which CCU admission is considered unnecessary. Key words: cardiac ischemia; coronary care; probability threshold. (Med Decis Making 8:90-94, 1988)
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 2,
90-94 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800204
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
F Kee, T Owen, and R Leathem
Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team?
J Epidemiol Community Health,
April 1, 2007;
61(4):
308 - 313.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Lai, J. Macmillan, D. H. Daudelin, and D. M. Kent
The Potential of Training to Increase Acceptance and Use of Computerized Decision Support Systems for Medical Diagnosis
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
January 1, 2006;
48(1):
95 - 108.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Braunwald, E. M. Antman, J. W. Beasley, R. M. Califf, M. D. Cheitlin, J. S. Hochman, R. H. Jones, D. Kereiakes, J. Kupersmith, T. N. Levin, et al.
ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the american college of cardiology/ american heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina)
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 1, 2000;
36(3):
970 - 1062.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Katz, J. L. Griffith, J. R. Beshansky, and H. P. Selker
The Use of Empiric Clinical Data in the Evaluation of Practice Guidelines for Unstable Angina
JAMA,
November 20, 1996;
276(19):
1568 - 1574.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Poses, C. Bekes, R. L. Winkler, W. E. Scott, and F. J. Copare
Are Two (Inexperienced) Heads Better Than One (Experienced) Head? Averaging House Officers' Prognostic Judgments for Critically Ill Patients
Arch Intern Med,
September 1, 1990;
150(9):
1874 - 1878.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
