Why Clinicians Prognosticate Stroke Patients Poorly: Results from the Clinician Judgment versus Risk Score to Predict Stroke Outcomes Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostication after a stroke has important implications for care and for decisions made by patients and their families. It is not clear why clinicians, even experienced stroke neurologists, poorly estimate the risk of disability and death following stroke. METHODS: We analyzed the results from the Clinician Judgment versus Risk Score to predict Stroke Outcomes study in which each clinician estimated the risk of death and the risk of death or disability in 5 case-based ischemic stroke scenarios. We employed a mixed-effect linear model to disentangle the ability of clinicians to discriminate between poor and good prognosis cases (slope) from the calibration of quantitative estimates (intercept), and to assess for any effect of anchoring in the death or disability condition (through a comparison with the death condition). RESULTS: One hundred eleven clinicians made 1665 predictions. Clinicians were able to discriminate between cases with low and high risks of death (slope of .81, 95% confidence interval [CI] .70-.93), but the quantitative estimates were not well calibrated (intercept of 5.14, 95% CI 3.97-6.33). The discrimination was poorer (slope of .67, 95% CI .60-.75), but the calibration was better (intercept of -.34, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.98) in the death or disability estimates. CONCLUSION: Poor stroke prognostication can be explained by poor calibration and an anchoring effect, which are both amenable to specific training interventions.

Narcotic analgesic utilization amongst injured workers: using concept mapping to understand current issues from the perspectives of physicians and pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Work-related injuries result in considerable morbidity, as well as social and economic costs. Pain associated with these injuries is a complex, contested topic, and narcotic analgesics (NA) remain important treatment options. Factors contributing to NA utilization patterns are poorly understood. This qualitative study sought to characterize the factors contributing to NA utilization amongst injured workers from the perspectives of physicians and pharmacists. METHODS: The study employed concept mapping methodology, a structured process yielding a conceptual framework of participants' views on a particular topic. A visual display of the ideas/concepts generated is produced. Eligible physicians and pharmacists (n = 22) serving injured workers in the province of Ontario (Canada) were recruited via purposive sampling, and participated in concept mapping activities (consisting of brainstorming, sorting, rating, and map exploration). Participants identified factors influencing NA utilization, and sorted these factors into categories (clusters). Next, they rated the factors on two scales: 'strength of influence on NA over-utilization' and 'amenability to intervention'. During follow-up focus groups, participants refined the maps and discussed the findings and their implications. RESULTS: 82 factors were sorted into 7 clusters: addiction risks, psychosocial issues, social/work environment factors, systemic-third party factors, pharmacy-related factors, treatment problems, and physician factors. These clusters were grouped into 2 overarching categories/regions on the map: patient-level factors, and healthcare/compensation system-level factors. Participants rated NA over-utilization as most influenced by patient-level factors, while system-level factors were rated as most amenable to intervention. One system-level cluster was rated highly on both scales (treatment problems - e.g. poor continuity of care, poor interprofessional communication, lack of education/support for physicians regarding pain management, unavailability of multidisciplinary team-based care, prolonged wait times to see specialists). CONCLUSIONS: Participants depicted factors driving NA utilization among injured workers as complex. Patient-level factors were perceived as most influential on over-utilization, while system-level factors were considered most amenable to intervention. This has implications for intervention design, suggesting that systemic/structural factors should be taken into account in order to address this important health issue.