Clinical Decision-Making
Dotaz
Zobrazit nápovědu
Medical decision making, ISSN 0272-989X vol. 22, no. 5, September/October 2002
116 s. : il., tab. ; 28 cm
1 online zdroj
- MeSH
- klinické lékařství MeSH
- rozhodování * MeSH
- zdravotní politika MeSH
- Publikační typ
- periodika MeSH
- Konspekt
- Veřejné zdraví a hygiena
- NLK Obory
- veřejné zdravotnictví
elektronický časopis
- Konspekt
- Lékařské vědy. Lékařství
- NLK Obory
- lékařská informatika
- NLK Publikační typ
- elektronické časopisy
BACKGROUND: Data registries lack a definitive classification system that distinguishes different locations of colon cancer from one another. OBJECTIVE: To establish an international consensus on the definition of primary colon cancer segment locations. DESIGN: Between December 2022 and June 2023, the Delphi survey study was conducted to seek opinions from relevant international experts and eventually develop a consensus definition of each colon cancer segment. SETTING: Three-round online-based Delphi survey study. INTERVENTIONS: The online survey included 17 questions. In the first 2 rounds, participating experts were asked to rank each statement on a scale of 1 (least relevant) to 9 (most relevant). Consensus statements and definitions were revised according to the results for statements obtaining a consensus score of 7 to 9. During the third round and online meeting, definitions and statements that reached a moderate or high consensus (above 4 for more than 70% of participants) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary goal of our project was focused on precisely localizing the specific segment affected by primary colon cancer rather than identifying surgical treatment or type of resection needed for a particular segment. RESULTS: The first round included 331 experts; 301 (91%) completed the second round and 295 (98%) completed the final round. Experts strongly supported the use of a "10-cm rule" to describe colon cancer sites at the flexures and anatomical landmarks for other segments. Regarding the definition of rectosigmoid cancer, experts from United States and Europe reached a high consensus that the term rectosigmoid as a colon cancer location must be abolished in contrast to experts from Asia. The description of overlapping segments of cancers achieved a consensus of 64%. LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey, the first internationally conducted consensus study, achieved a remarkable level of consensus among a panel of global experts. Ambiguity still exists regarding overlapping lesions. See Video Abstract . ESTANDARIZACIN DE LA DEFINICIN DE CADA SEGMENTO DE CNCER DE COLON CONSENSO DELPHI SOBRE LA TOMA DE DECISIONES CLNICAS PARA RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS: ANTECEDENTES:Las bases de datos carecen de un sistema de clasificación definitivo que distinga las diferentes localizaciones del cáncer de colon.OBJETIVO:Establecer un consenso internacional sobre la definición de las localizaciones de los segmentos del cáncer de colon priamrio.DISEÑO:Entre diciembre de 2022 y junio de 2023, se realizó un estudio Delphi para recabar la opinión de expertos internacionales relevantes y, finalmente, desarrollar una definición consensuada de cada segmento del cáncer de colon.ESCENARIO:Estudio Delphi en línea de 3 rondas.INTERVENCIONES:La encuesta en línea incluyó 17 preguntas. En las dos primeras rondas, se pidió a los expertos participantes que calificaran cada afirmación en una escala del 1 al 9 (9 es la más relevante). Las afirmaciones y definiciones de consenso se revisaron según los resultados, obteniendo una puntuación de consenso de 7 a 9. Durante la tercera ronda y la reunión en línea, se incluyeron las definiciones y afirmaciones que alcanzaron un consenso moderado o alto (superior a 4 en más del 70 % de los participantes).MEDIDA PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADOS:El objetivo principal de nuestro proyecto se centró en localizar con precisión el segmento específico afectado por el cáncer de colon primario, en lugar de identificar el tratamiento quirúrgico o el tipo de resección necesario para un segmento en particular.RESULTADOS:La primera ronda incluyó a 331 expertos, 301 (91%) completaron la segunda ronda y 295 (98%) completaron la ronda final. Los expertos apoyaron firmemente el uso de una "regla de 10 cm" para describir las localizaciones del cáncer de colon en las flexuras y puntos de referencia anatómicos para otros segmentos. En cuanto a la definición de cáncer rectosigmoideo, expertos de América y Europa alcanzaron un alto consenso en la necesidad de abolir el término "rectosigmoide" como localización del cáncer de colon, a diferencia de los expertos de Asia. La descripción de los cánceres en segmentos que se superponen a alcanzó un consenso del 64%.LIMITACIONES:Las decisiones subjetivas se basan en la experiencia clínica individual de cada experto.CONCLUSIONES:Esta encuesta Delphi, el primer estudio de consenso realizado a nivel internacional, alcanzó un notable nivel de consenso entre un panel de expertos globales. Todavía existe ambigüedad en cuanto a las lesiones superpuestas. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).
- MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- klinické rozhodování * metody MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory tračníku * patologie klasifikace diagnóza chirurgie MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical decision-making for benzodiazepine deprescribing between a healthcare provider (HCP) and an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot GPT4 (ChatGPT-4). METHODS: We analysed real-world data from a Croatian cohort of community-dwelling benzodiazepine patients (n = 154) within the EuroAgeism H2020 ESR 7 project. HCPs evaluated the data using pre-established deprescribing criteria to assess benzodiazepine discontinuation potential. The research team devised and tested AI prompts to ensure consistency with HCP judgements. An independent researcher employed ChatGPT-4 with predetermined prompts to simulate clinical decisions for each patient case. Data derived from human-HCP and ChatGPT-4 decisions were compared for agreement rates and Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Both HPC and ChatGPT identified patients for benzodiazepine deprescribing (96.1% and 89.6%, respectively), showing an agreement rate of 95% (κ = .200, P = .012). Agreement on four deprescribing criteria ranged from 74.7% to 91.3% (lack of indication κ = .352, P < .001; prolonged use κ = .088, P = .280; safety concerns κ = .123, P = .006; incorrect dosage κ = .264, P = .001). Important limitations of GPT-4 responses were identified, including 22.1% ambiguous outputs, generic answers and inaccuracies, posing inappropriate decision-making risks. CONCLUSIONS: While AI-HCP agreement is substantial, sole AI reliance poses a risk for unsuitable clinical decision-making. This study's findings reveal both strengths and areas for enhancement of ChatGPT-4 in the deprescribing recommendations within a real-world sample. Our study underscores the need for additional research on chatbot functionality in patient therapy decision-making, further fostering the advancement of AI for optimal performance.
- MeSH
- benzodiazepiny škodlivé účinky MeSH
- depreskripce * MeSH
- klinické rozhodování MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- umělá inteligence * MeSH
- zdravotnický personál MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
b.v. 210 s.
- Klíčová slova
- ošetřovatelská péče, péče během operace,
- MeSH
- perioperační péče MeSH
- rozhodování MeSH
- Publikační typ
- příručky MeSH
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. METHODS: We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. RESULTS: We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.
- MeSH
- cévní mozková příhoda * prevence a kontrola MeSH
- fibrilace síní * komplikace MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- metody pro podporu rozhodování MeSH
- rozhodování MeSH
- sdílené rozhodování MeSH
- zapojení pacienta MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
BACKGROUND: While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style - Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians' expertise, training, and practice. RESULTS: SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style. CONCLUSIONS: The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.
- MeSH
- klinické rozhodování MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- průřezové studie MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky MeSH
- psychiatrie * MeSH
- rozhodování MeSH
- zapojení pacienta * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
