IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v8y1988i2p90-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Did the Acute Ischemic Heart Disease Predictiue Instrument Reduce Unnecessary Coronary Care Unit Admissions?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert A. McNutt
  • Harry P. Selker

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Robert A. McNutt & Harry P. Selker, 1988. "How Did the Acute Ischemic Heart Disease Predictiue Instrument Reduce Unnecessary Coronary Care Unit Admissions?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(2), pages 90-94, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:8:y:1988:i:2:p:90-94
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8800800204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8800800204?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. Thomas S. Wallsten, 1981. "Physician and Medical Student Bias in Evaluating Diagnostic Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(2), pages 145-164, June.
    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. Neal V. Dawson & Hal R. Arkes & Carl Siciliano & Richard Blinkhorn & Mark Lakshmanan & Mary Petrelli, 1988. "Hindsight Bias: An Impediment to Accurate Probability Estimation in Clinicopathologic Conferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(4), pages 259-264, December.
    2. William P. Bottom & Paul W. Paese, 1999. "Judgment Accuracy and the Asymmetric Cost of Errors in Distributive Bargaining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 349-364, July.
    3. Gurmankin Levy, Andrea & Hershey, John C., 2006. "Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 52-58, September.
    4. John M. Eisenberg & John C. Hershey, 1983. "Derived Thresholds," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(2), pages 155-168, June.
    5. Andreas Herrmann & René Befurt & Mark Heitmann & Hans Berger, 2007. "Alles für die Marke? Produktdesign im Konflikt zwischen einer markenkonformen und einer eigenständigen Produktliniengestaltung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(8), pages 1055-1079, December.
    6. Tatiana Andia & César Mantilla & Paul Rodríguez-Lesmes & Leonel Criado & Juan Sebastián Gómez & Santiago Ortiz & Andrea Quintero & Ferley Rincón & Steffanny Romero, 2020. "Information and symptoms assessment in community pharmacies during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit study in Colombia," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S2), pages 5-14, December.
    7. Carlson, Kurt A. & Pearo, Lisa Klein, 2004. "Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 48-59, May.
    8. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    9. John C. Hershey & Jonathan Baron, 1987. "Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(4), pages 203-211, December.
    10. Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Mehmet Ulvi Saygi Ayvaci & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2019. "When Algorithmic Predictions Use Human-Generated Data: A Bias-Aware Classification Algorithm for Breast Cancer Diagnosis," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 97-116, March.
    11. Andia, Tatiana & Mantilla, Cesar & Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul & Criado, Leonel & Gomez, Juan Sebastian & Ortiz, Santiago & Quintero, Andrea & Rincón, Heiner & Romero, Steffanny, 2020. "Mentioning anosmia improves how community pharmacies handle phone call requests during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit study in Colombia," SocArXiv s2z47, Center for Open Science.
    12. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    13. Jay J. J. Christensen-Szalanski & Paula H. Diehr & James B. Bushyhead & Robert W. Wood, 1982. "Two Studies of Good Clinical Judgment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(3), pages 275-283, August.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:662-677 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Seth A. Miller & Michael L. DeKay & Eric R. Stone & Clare M. Sorenson, 2013. "Assessing the sensitivity of information distortion to four potential influences in studies of risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 662-677, November.

    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:8:y:1988:i:2:p:90-94. 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.