Skip to main content
Log in

Decision Support in Multi-Professional Communication

Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the role of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in facilitating communication between physicians, nurses, patients and family members. Thirty-three critical care unit nurses and physicians were interviewed regarding the APACHE III CDSS. This qualitative, descriptive study suggests that registered nurses and physicians are primarily motivated to use CDSS when this technology allows them to forecast the potential outcomes of decisions prior to actually making those decisions. These forecasts are used to advocate for care decisions with other disciplines, patients and their family members. Implications for professional practice and recommendations for future research are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Manojlovich, M., and DeCicco, B., Healthy work environments, nurse–physician communication, and patients’ outcomes. American Journal of Critical Care. 16:536–543, 2007. (Nov).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reader, T. W., Flin, R., and Cuthbertson, B. H., Communication skills and error in the intensive care unit. Current Opinion in Critical Care. 13:732–736, 2007, (Dec).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Erlen, J. A., and Sereika, S. M., Critical care nurses, ethical decision-making and stress. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 26:953–961, 1997, (Nov).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baggs, J. G., and Schmitt, M. H., Intensive care decisions about level of aggressiveness of care. Research in Nursing & Health. 18:345–355, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hamric, A. B., and Blackhall, L. J., Nurse–physician perspectives on the care of dying patients in intensive care units: collaboration, moral distress, and ethical climate. Critical Care Medicine. 35:422–429, 2007, (Feb).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fagin, C. M., Collaboration between nurses and physicians: No longer a choice. Academic Medicine. 67:295–303, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shannon, S. E., Mitchell, P. H., and Cain, K. C., Patients, nurses, and physicians have differing views of quality of critical care. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 34:173–179, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wocial, L. D., Achieving collaboration in ethical decision making: strategies for nurses in clinical practice. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing. 15:150–159, 1996, (May–Jun).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., and Helmreich, R. L., Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Critical Care Medicine. 31:956–959, 2003, (Mar).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stein, L. I., The doctor–nurse game. Archives of General Psychiatry. 16:699–673, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Castella, X., Artigas, A., Bion, J., and Kari, A., A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: Results of a multicenter, multinational study. Critical Care Medicine. 23:1327–1335, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Butters, S., and Eom, S., Decision support systems in the health care industry. Journal of Systems Management. 43:28–31, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Silver, M. S., Decision support systems: Directed and non-directed change. Information Systems Research. 1:47–70, 1990.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Shortliffe, E. H., The adolescence of artificial intelligence in medicine: Will the field come of age in the 90’s? Artificial Intelligence. 5:93–106, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J., Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chenitz, W. C., and Swanson, J. M., Qualitative research using grounded theory. In: Chenitz, W. C., Swanson, and J. M. (Eds.), From practice to grounded theoryAddison-Wesley, Menlo Park, pp. 3–15, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L., the discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter, Hawthorne, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Knaus, W. A., Wagner, D. P., and Lynn, J., Short-term mortality predictions for critically ill hospitalized adults: Science and ethics. Science. 18:345–488, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Watts, C. M., and Knaus, W. A., The case for using objective scoring systems to predict intensive care unit outcomes. Critical Care Clinics. 10:73–89, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Creswell, J. W., Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mallach, E. G., Understanding decision support systems and expert systems. Irwin, Chicago, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zimmerman, J. E., Wagner, D. P., Draper, E. A., and Knaus, W. A., Improving intensive care unit discharge decisions: supplementing physician judgment with predictions of next day risk for life support. Critical Care Medicine. 22:1373–1384, 1994, (Sep).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gibson, R. F., Haug, P. J., and Horn, S. D., Lessons from evaluating an automated patient severity index. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 3:349–358, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kruse, J. A., Thill-Baharozian, M. C., and Carlson, R. W., Comparison of clinical assessment with APACHE II for predicting mortality risk in patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit. Journal of the American Medical Association. 260:1739–1742, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ludwigs, U., and Hulting, J., Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II scoring system in acute myocardial infarction: A prospective validation study. Critical Care Medicine. 23:854–859, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Knaus, W. A., Wagner, D. P., Draper, E. A., Zimmerman, J. E., Bergner, M., and Bastos, P. G., The APACHE III prognostic system: Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest. 100:1619–1163, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barie, P. S., Hydo, L. J., and Fischer, E., Comparison of APACHE II and III scoring systems for mortality prediction in critical surgical illness. Archives of Surgery. 130:77–82, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Knaus, W. A., Draper, E. A., Wagner, D. P., and Zimmerman, J. E., An evaluation of outcomes from intensive care in major medical centers. Annals of Internal Medicine. 104:410–418, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hadorn, D. C., Keeler, E. B., Rogers, W. H., and Brook, R. H., Assessing the performance of mortality prediction models. Rand, Santa Monica, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zimmerman, J. E., Kramer, A. A., McNair, D. S., and Malila, F. M., Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine. 34:1297–1310, 2006, May.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Glaser, B. G., Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchinson, S., Grounded theory: the method. In: Munhall, P. L., Oiler, and C. J. (Eds.), Nursing research: a qualitative perspective Appleton-Century-Crofts, Norwalk, pp. 111–130, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our consultants, Barbara J. Bowers and Sandra Ward from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Research funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and the Charles Eckberg Foundation supported this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen L. Courtney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, S., Courtney, K.L. & Benham-Hutchins, M. Decision Support in Multi-Professional Communication. J Med Syst 33, 59–65 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-008-9164-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-008-9164-6

Keywords

Navigation