HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2007.117424v1 92/8/672    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jenkins, J. Articles by Kee, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jenkins, J. Articles by Kee, F. Topic Collections Related Article

Decision making in asthma exacerbation: a clinical judgement analysis

¹ Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
² Queen’s University Belfast, Paediatric Department, Antrim Hospital, Antrim BT41 2RL, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr John Jenkins
Queen’s University Belfast, Paediatric Department, Antrim Hospital, Antrim BT41 2RL, UK; j.jenkins{at}qub.ac.uk

Background: Clinical decisions which impact directly on patient safety and quality of care are made during acute asthma attacks by individual doctors based on their knowledge and experience. Decisions include administration of systemic corticosteroids (CS) and oral antibiotics, and admission to hospital. Clinical judgement analysis provides a methodology for comparing decisions between practitioners with different training and experience, and improving decision making.

Methods: Stepwise linear regression was used to select clinical cues based on visual analogue scale assessments of the propensity of 62 clinicians to prescribe a short course of oral CS (decision 1), a course of antibiotics (decision 2), and/or admit to hospital (decision 3) for 60 "paper" patients.

Results: When compared by specialty, paediatricians’ models for decision 1 were more likely to include level of alertness as a cue (54% vs 16%); for decision 2 they were more likely to include presence of crepitations (49% vs 16%) and less likely to include inhaled CS (8% vs 40%), respiratory rate (0% vs 24%) and air entry (70% vs 100%). When compared to other grades, the models derived for decision 3 by consultants/general practitioners were more likely to include wheeze severity as a cue (39% vs 6%).

Conclusions: Clinicians differed in their use of individual cues and the number included in their models. Patient safety and quality of care will benefit from clarification of decision-making strategies as general learning points during medical training, in the development of guidelines and care pathways, and by clinicians developing self-awareness of their own preferences.

Abbreviations: A&E, accident and emergency; CS, corticosteroids; GPs, general practitioners; VAS, visual analogue scale

Keywords: clinical judgement analysis; decision making; asthma; systemic corticosteroids; hospital admission

Related Article

A brief digest of the August issue
Arch. Dis. Child. 2007 92: e8. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]