Evaluating the Decision-Making Proficiency Among Medical Residents at Tehran University of Medical Sciences in the Year 2022-2023: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
,
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the decision-making proficiency among medical residents at Tehran University of Medical Sciences in the year 2022-2023.
Methods: A structured online web-survey via national approved services Author’s designed questionnaire was used to collect the relative data based on variables of the study and was developed by the authors of the study by reviewing the previously conducted studies. The forms were sent to the medical residents at Tehran University of Medical Sciences as a link via electronic mail and social media; assistance was offered via direct or indirect contact upon request.
Results: In this study, 88 medical residents of Tehran University of Medical Sciences were evaluated. Out of 88 participants, the frequency of females was 52(59.09%) and frequency of males was found out to be 36(40.91%). The frequency of the first- year residents was 28(37.50), second year residents was 33(21.59), third year residents was 19(9.09) and the fourth- year residents was found out to be 8(31.82). The frequency of different specialties were: Pathology 1(1.14%), Infectious diseases 1(1.14%), Cardio vascular diseases 1(1.14%), Emergency medicine 1(1.14%), Orthopedics2(2.27%), Psychiatry 3(3.41%), ENT 12(13.64%), Internal Medicine 13(14.77%), Pediatrics13(14.77%), OB&GYN 19(21.59%), Anesthesiology19(21.59%), Dermatology 2(2.27%), General Surgery 1(1.14%).
Conclusion: There is a significant relationship based on linear regression between not having self - reported availability bias and surgical residency specialties. The surgical specialty is less prone to the availability bias. A difference of communication exists between the surgical and nonsurgical speciality and the nonsurgical specialties need to confirm their decision using other methods to prevent the patient harm.
[2] Schoemaker PJH, Russo JE. Decision-Making. In: Augier M, Teece D, editors. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_341-1.
[3] Montori VM, Ruissen MM, Hargraves IG, et al. Shared decision-making as a method of care. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2023; 28:213-217.
[4] Borrell-Carrio F, Epstein RM. Preventing errors in clinical practice: a call for self-awareness. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2:310-316
[5] Marcelo A, Gavino A, Isip-Tan IT, Apostol-Nicodemus L, Mesa-Gaerlan FJ, Firaza PN, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital. Evid Based Med. 2013; 18(2):48–53.
[6] Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142:260–73.
[7] Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996; 312:71–2.
[8] Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Measurement, Design, and Analysis. Available from: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/programs/measurement-design-and-analysis. Accessed May 2023.
[9] Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. How Healthcare Executives Can Use Health Outcomes Research for Business Decision Making. Available from: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/how-healthcare-executives-can-use-health-outcomes-research-for-business-decision-making/#:~:text=Health%20outcomes%20research%20can%20be,changes%20and%20evaluate%20their%20effectiveness. Accessed May 2023
[10] Berman S. Clinical decision making. In: Bajaj L, Hambidge SJ, Kerby G, Nyquist AC, editors. Berman's Pediatric Decision Making. 5th ed. Mosby; 2011. p. 1-6. ISBN 9780323054058. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-05405-8.00010-3.
[11] Champagne-Langabeer T, Hedges AL. Physician gender as a source of implicit bias affecting clinical decision-making processes: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2021; 21(1):171.
[12] Gotlieb R, Abitbol J, How JA, Ben-Brith I, Abenhaim HA, Lau SK, et al. Gender differences in how physicians access and process information. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019; 27:50-53.
[13] Mamede S, van Gog T, van den Berge K, et al. Effect of Availability Bias and Reflective Reasoning on Diagnostic Accuracy Among Internal Medicine Residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198–1203.
[14] Waldrop RD. Medical Decision-Making Errors Due to Faulty Heuristics in the Pediatric Emergency Department and the Use of Mindfulness. J Pediatr Neonatal Care. 2017; 7(4):00299.
[15] Ellis M V, Robbins E S, Schult D, Ladany N, Banker J. Anchoring errors in clinical judgments: Type I error, adjustment, or mitigation? J Counseling Psychology. 1990; 37(3), 343–351.
[16] Eva KW. The aging physician: changes in cognitive processing and their impact on medical practice. Acad Med. 2002; 77(10 Suppl):S1-6.
[17] Hajjaj F, Salek M, Basra M, Finlay A. Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice. J R Soc Med. 2010; 103(5):178-187.
[18] Dargahi H, Monajemi A, Soltani A, Nejad Nedaie HH, Labaf A. Anchoring Errors in Emergency Medicine Residents and Faculties. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2022; 36:124.
[19] Perona M, Rahman MA, O’Meara P. Paramedic Judgement, Decision-Making and Cognitive Processing: A Review of the Literature. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine. 2019; 16:1-12.
[20] Soola AH, Mehri S, Azizpour I. Evaluation of the factors affecting triage decision-making among emergency department nurses and emergency medical technicians in Iran: a study based on Benner's theory. BMC Emerg Med. 2022; 22(1):174.
[21] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 1974; 185:1124–1131.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Article in Press |
|
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Decision making proficiency Common biases Physicians Health care system | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
