CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
research
Assessing the validity of using serious game technology to analyze physician decision making
Authors
DC Angus
AE Barnato
+6 more
C Farris
B Fischhoff
D Mohan
D Ricketts
MR Rosengart
DM Yealy
Publication date
25 August 2014
Publisher
'Public Library of Science (PLoS)'
Doi
View
on
PubMed
Abstract
Background: Physician non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines remains a critical barrier to high quality care. Serious games (using gaming technology for serious purposes) have emerged as a method of studying physician decision making. However, little is known about their validity. Methods: We created a serious game and evaluated its construct validity. We used the decision context of trauma triage in the Emergency Department of non-trauma centers, given widely accepted guidelines that recommend the transfer of severely injured patients to trauma centers. We designed cases with the premise that the representativeness heuristic influences triage (i.e. physicians make transfer decisions based on archetypes of severely injured patients rather than guidelines). We randomized a convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians to a control or cognitive load arm, and compared performance (disposition decisions, number of orders entered, time spent per case). We hypothesized that cognitive load would increase the use of heuristics, increasing the transfer of representative cases and decreasing the transfer of non-representative cases. Findings: We recruited 209 physicians, of whom 168 (79%) began and 142 (68%) completed the task. Physicians transferred 31% of severely injured patients during the game, consistent with rates of transfer for severely injured patients in practice. They entered the same average number of orders in both arms (control (C): 10.9 [SD 4.8] vs. cognitive load (CL):10.7 [SD 5.6], p = 0.74), despite spending less time per case in the control arm (C: 9.7 [SD 7.1] vs. CL: 11.7 [SD 6.7] minutes, p<0.01). Physicians were equally likely to transfer representative cases in the two arms (C: 45% vs. CL: 34%, p = 0.20), but were more likely to transfer non-representative cases in the control arm (C: 38% vs. CL: 26%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: We found that physicians made decisions consistent with actual practice, that we could manipulate cognitive load, and that load increased the use of heuristics, as predicted by cognitive theory. © 2014 Mohan et al
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Directory of Open Access Journals
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:doaj.org/article:887aa5885...
Last time updated on 13/10/2017
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pon...
Last time updated on 05/06/2019
Name not available
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:d-scholarship.pitt.edu:229...
Last time updated on 23/11/2016
Name not available
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:d-scholarship.pitt.edu:229...
Last time updated on 15/12/2016
The Francis Crick Institute
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:figshare.com:article/11511...
Last time updated on 12/02/2018
D-Scholarship@Pitt
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:d-scholarship.pitt.edu:229...
Last time updated on 10/05/2016