Author
Listed:
- Samuel K. McGowan
(Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- Maria-Jose Corrales-Martinez
(Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Teva Brender
(Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- Alexander K. Smith
(Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- Shannen Kim
(Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- Krista L. Harrison
(Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- Hunter Mills
(Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- Albert Lee
(Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
- David Bamman
(School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA)
- Julien Cobert
(Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA)
Abstract
Background Clinical uncertainty is associated with increased resource utilization, worsened health-related quality of life for patients, and provider burnout, particularly during critical illness. Existing data are limited, because determining uncertainty from notes typically requires manual, qualitative review. We sought to develop a consensus list of descriptors of clinical uncertainty and then, using a thematic analysis approach, describe how respondents consider their use in intensive care unit (ICU) notes, such that future work can extract uncertainty data at scale. Design We conducted a Delphi consensus study with physicians across multiple institutions nationally who care for critically ill patients or patients with advanced illnesses. Participants were given a definition for clinical uncertainty and collaborated through multiple rounds to determine which words represent uncertainty in clinician notes. We also administered surveys that included open-ended questions to participants about clinical uncertainty. Following derivation of a consensus list, we analyzed participant responses using thematic analysis to understand the role of uncertainty in clinical documentation. Results Nineteen physicians participated in at least 2 of the Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved for 44 words or phrases over 5 rounds of the Delphi process. Clinicians described comfort with using uncertainty terms and used them in a variety of ways: documenting and processing the diagnostic thinking process, enlisting help, identifying incomplete information, and practicing transparency to reflect uncertainty that was present. Conclusions Using a consensus process, we created an uncertainty lexicon that can be used for uncertainty data extraction from the medical record. We demonstrate that physicians, particularly in the ICU, are comfortable with uncertainty and document uncertainty terms frequently to convey the complexity and ambiguity that is pervasive in critical illness. Highlights Question: What words do physicians caring for critically ill patients use to document clinical uncertainty, and why? Findings: A consensus list of 44 words or phrases was identified by a group of experts. Physicians expressed comfort with using these words in the electronic health record. Meaning: Physicians are comfortable with uncertainty words and document them frequently to convey the complexity and ambiguity that is pervasive in critical illness.
Suggested Citation
Samuel K. McGowan & Maria-Jose Corrales-Martinez & Teva Brender & Alexander K. Smith & Shannen Kim & Krista L. Harrison & Hunter Mills & Albert Lee & David Bamman & Julien Cobert, 2025.
"Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(1), pages 34-44, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:1:p:34-44
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241293446
Download full text from publisher
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:45:y:2025:i:1:p:34-44. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.