scholarly journals US physicians’ decision-making during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment: Conjoint analyses of dose and office visit adjustments based on patient progress

2019 ◽  
Vol 204 ◽  
pp. 107490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah K. Knudsen ◽  
Michelle R. Lofwall ◽  
Lewei Allison Lin ◽  
Sharon L. Walsh ◽  
Jamie L. Studts
2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Davis ◽  
Barry Gribben ◽  
Roy Lay-Yee ◽  
Alastair Scott

Objectives: There is considerable policy interest in medical practice variation (MPV). Although the extent of MPV has been quantified for secondary care, this has not been investigated adequately in general practice. Technical obstacles to such analyses have been presented by the reliance on ecological small area variation (SAV) data, the binary nature of many clinical outcomes in primary care and by diagnostic variability. The study seeks to quantify the extent of variation in clinical activity between general practitioners by addressing these problems. Methods: A survey of nearly 10 000 encounters drawn from a representative sample of general practitioners in the Waikato region of New Zealand was carried out in the period 1991-1992. Participating doctors recorded all details of clinical activity for a sample of encounters. Measures used in this analysis are the issuing of a prescription, the ordering of a laboratory test or radiology examination, and the recommendation of a future follow-up office visit at a specified date. An innovative statistical technique is adopted to assess the allocation of variance for binary outcomes within a multi-level analysis of decision-making. Results: As expected, there was considerable variability between doctors in levels of prescribing, ordering of investigations and requests for follow up. These differences persisted after controlling for case-mix and patient and practitioner attributes. However, analysis of the components of variance suggested that less than 10% of remaining variability occurred at the practitioner level for any of the measures of clinical activity. Further analysis of a single diagnostic group - upper respiratory tract infection - marginally increased the practitioner contribution. Conclusions: The amount of variability in clinical activity that can definitively be linked to the practitioner in primary care is similar to that recorded in studies of the secondary sector. With primary care doctors increasingly being grouped into larger professional organisations, we can expect application of multi-level techniques to the analysis of clinical activity in primary care at different levels of organisational complexity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Birju Rao ◽  
Neal W Dickert ◽  
David Howard ◽  
Dan D Matlock ◽  
Leon Darghosian ◽  
...  

Background: In 2018, CMS required shared decision-making (SDM) with a decision (DA) prior to implantation of a primary prevention cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Little is known about how DAs should be incorporated, but the implementation strategy may affect the process. Providing DAs prior to the SDM visit may facilitate informed discussion. However, this requires identifying ICD candidates ahead of time which may be logistically challenging. Providing the DA during the office visit requires less administrative effort but may reduce the impact of the DA. Objective: To evaluate the impact of DA timing on SDM outcomes. Methods: Patients referred for ICD implantation were block randomized across 3 clinics to receive the DA 30 minutes prior to, or at the end of the SDM visit. Patients were surveyed on implant day in several SDM domains including knowledge about ICDs, decisional conflict, values-choice concordance and the extent to which patients felt engaged in the decision-making process. Patients who chose not to have an ICD implanted after the SDM visit were surveyed by mail. Implanting physicians were also surveyed to assess perceptions about the impact of the DA. Results: Of 42 randomized patients, 24 completed the survey with 9 who received the DA before and 15 after the SDM visit. Three chose not to have an ICD implanted: 1 received the DA before and 2 after the visit. Though overall knowledge about ICDs was similar between groups (Table), every patient who received the DA before the encounter understood the primary purpose of the ICD, compared with 10/15 who received the DA after the visit. Receiving the DA earlier showed a numerically higher rate of understanding the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks. No significant differences were observed in decisional conflict, values-choice concordance, or reported patient engagement in decision-making. Conclusion: Patients who received a DA prior to the visit had numerically, but not significantly, higher rates of understanding the purpose of the ICD and risk of inappropriate shocks. These pilot data suggest that efforts to provide DAs ahead of time may strengthen SDM interaction and that an implementation strategy is critical to study. Important knowledge gaps remain in both groups, suggesting opportunities to improve SDM for ICDs.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-562
Author(s):  

A visit to the pediatrician's office by the expectant couple makes good sense; yet, it appears to be the exception rather than the rule. In a recent survey, 73% of 118 practicing pediatricians reported that they conduct prenatal visits, but only 22% of their expectant couples had actually been seen before their infant's birth. This percentage is even lower in other settings. On their first contact with the pediatrician, expectant parents should be encouraged to make an appointment for an office visit. This visit, which usually takes place during the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy, represents an opportunity for the pediatrician to gather data, give information, initiate a continuing relationship, and enhance the parents' competency in decision making. The session helps the parents select a pediatrician with whom they are comfortable and enables them to feel that they are meeting their responsibility to provide skilled care for their infant. In the beginning of the prenatal visit, the pediatrician should convey a personal interest in the prospective parents by asking questions that provide an opportunity for him or her to become acquainted with the parents and their expectations: "How long have you lived in the community?" "What kind of work do you do?" "What are your interests and hobbies?" "How have you been feeling?" "How do you expect to deliver?" How do you plan to feed your baby?" "Have you obtained an infant car seat to take the baby home in?" "Is it a boy or girl?" Prenatal discussions with the pediatrician may augment the expectant couple's confidence in their feelings about breast-feeding, circumcision, and rooming-in.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document