IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v10y1990i1p6-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Difference Do Two Days Make? The Inertia of Physicians' Sequential Prognostic Judgments for Critically III Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Roy M. Poses
  • Carolyn Bekes
  • Fiore J. Copare
  • William E. Scott

Abstract

Medical authorities have asserted the importance of observing a patient's clinical course over time. Distinguished committees have suggested that changes over time in physicians' prognostic estimates should influence decisions to transfer patients out of intensive care units (ICUs). This study evaluated how the opportunity to observe patients over time affected physicians' prognostic estimates for a cohort of 269 critically ill patients sequentially admitted to a medical-surgical ICU in a teaching hospital. As soon as possible after admission and again 48 hours later, the authors obtained a quantitative estimate of the probability of survival through hospital discharge from each patient's house officer and primary attending physician, and the critical care attending physician on duty. They independently determined each patient's survival. From this population they analyzed 181 pairs of judgments made by the same house officers, 211 pairs by the same primary attendings, and 172 pairs by the same critical care attendings. The physicians' 48-hour estimates were little changed from their previous estimates for the same patients. The correlation coefficient for the house officers' paired estimates was 0.84 (p

Suggested Citation

  • Roy M. Poses & Carolyn Bekes & Fiore J. Copare & William E. Scott, 1990. "What Difference Do Two Days Make? The Inertia of Physicians' Sequential Prognostic Judgments for Critically III Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 6-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:10:y:1990:i:1:p:6-14
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9001000103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9001000103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yates, J. Frank & Zhu, Ying & Ronis, David L. & Wang, Deng-Feng & Shinotsuka, Hiromi & Toda, Masanao, 1989. "Probability judgment accuracy: China, Japan, and the United States," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 145-171, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E. & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 1999. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Choice Behavior and Use of Decision Aids: A Comparison of Japan and the United States," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 147-170, February.
    2. Michael Muthukrishna & Joseph Henrich & Wataru Toyokawa & Takeshi Hamamura & Tatsuya Kameda & Steven J Heine, 2018. "Overconfidence is universal? Elicitation of Genuine Overconfidence (EGO) procedure reveals systematic differences across domain, task knowledge, and incentives in four populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-30, August.
    3. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.
    4. Chen, Tsung-Yu & Chao, Ching-Hsiang & Wu, Zhen-Xing, 2021. "Does the turnover effect matter in emerging markets? Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Kremena Bachmann & Thorsten Hens, 2016. "Is there Swissness in investment decision behavior and investment competence?," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 30(3), pages 233-275, August.
    6. Yates, J. Frank & Lee, Ju-Whei & Bush, Julie G G., 1997. "General Knowledge Overconfidence: Cross-National Variations, Response Style, and "Reality"," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 87-94, May.
    7. Yates, J. Frank & de Oliveira, Stephanie, 2016. "Culture and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 106-118.
    8. Kim, Kenneth A. & Nofsinger, John R., 2008. "Behavioral finance in Asia," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-2), pages 1-7, January.
    9. Aukutsionek, Sergei P. & Belianin, Alexis V., 2001. "Quality of forecasts and business performance: A survey study of Russian managers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 661-692, October.
    10. Wang, Wenzhao & Su, Chen & Duxbury, Darren, 2021. "Investor sentiment and stock returns: Global evidence," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 365-391.
    11. Wallsten, Thomas S. & Gu, Hongbin, 2003. "Distinguishing choice and subjective probability estimation processes: Implications for theories of judgment and for cross-cultural comparisons," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 111-123, January.
    12. Robert N. Bontempo & William P. Bottom & Elke U. Weber, 1997. "Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-488, August.
    13. Jain, Kriti & Bearden, J. Neil & Filipowicz, Allan, 2013. "Depression and forecast accuracy: Evidence from the 2010 FIFA World Cup," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 69-79.
    14. Feng, Tianjun & Keller, L. Robin & Zheng, Xiaona, 2011. "Decision making in the newsvendor problem: A cross-national laboratory study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-50, January.
    15. Eranova, Mariya & Prashantham, Shameen, 2016. "Decision making and paradox: Why study China?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 193-201.
    16. Ayton, Peter, 1997. "How to Be IncoherentandSeductive: Bookmakers' Odds and Support Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 99-115, October.
    17. Ogbeide, Henry & Thomson, Mary Elizabeth & Gonul, Mustafa Sinan & Pollock, Andrew Castairs & Bhowmick, Sanjay & Bello, Abdullahi Usman, 2023. "The anti-money laundering risk assessment: A probabilistic approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    18. Cesarini, David & Sandewall, Orjan & Johannesson, Magnus, 2006. "Confidence interval estimation tasks and the economics of overconfidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 453-470, November.
    19. Rieger, Marc O. & Wang, Mei & Phan, Thuy Chung & Gong, Yujing, 2022. "Trend following or reversal: Does culture affect predictions and trading behavior?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    20. Paek, Miyoun & Ko, Kwangsoo, 2014. "Aggregate net flows, inflows, and outflows of equity funds: The U.S. versus Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 85-95.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:10:y:1990:i:1:p:6-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.