RESUMO
Background: Discordance with well-known sepsis resuscitation guidelines is often attributed to rational assessments of patients at the point of care. Conversely, we sought to explore the impact of choice architecture (i.e., the environment, manner, and behavioral psychology within which options are presented and decisions are made) on decisions to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes. Design: We conducted an electronic, survey-based study using a septic shock clinical vignette. Physicians from multiple specialties and training levels at an academic tertiary-care hospital and academic safety-net hospital were randomized to distinct answer sets: control (6 fluid options), time constraint (6 fluid options with a 10-s limit to answer), or choice overload (25 fluid options). The primary outcome was discordance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign fluid resuscitation guidelines. We also measured response times and examined the relationship between each choice architecture intervention group, response time, and guideline discordance. Results: A total of 189 of 624 (30.3%) physicians completed the survey. Time spent answering the vignette was reduced in time constraint (9.5 s, interquartile range [IQR] 7.3 s to 10.0 s, P < 0.001) and increased in choice overload (56.8 s, IQR 35.9 s to 86.7 s, P < 0.001) groups compared with control (28.3 s, IQR 20.0 s to 44.6 s). In contrast, the relative risk of guideline discordance was higher in time constraint (2.07, 1.33 to 3.23, P = 0.001) and lower in choice overload (0.75, 0.60, to 0.95, P =0.02) groups. After controlling for time spent reading the vignette, the overall odds of choosing guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced for every additional second spent answering the vignette (OR 0.98, 0.97, to 0.99, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Choice architecture may affect fluid resuscitation decisions in sepsis regardless of patient conditions, warranting further investigation in real-world contexts. These effects should be considered when implementing practice guidelines. Highlights: Time constrained clinical decision making was associated with increased proportion of guideline-discordant responses and relative risk of failure to prescribe guideline-recommended intravenous fluids using a sepsis clinical vignette.Choice overload increased response times and was associated with decreased proportion of guideline-discordant responses and relative risk of guideline discordance.Physician odds of choosing to prescribe guideline-discordant fluid volumes were reduced with increased deliberation as measured by response times.Clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and administrators should consider the effect of choice architecture on clinical decision making and guideline discordance when implementing guidelines for sepsis and other acute care conditions.
RESUMO
RATIONALE: There remains significant controversy regarding the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation for patients in shock. The magnitude of care variability in shock resuscitation, the confounding effects of disease severity and comorbidity, and the relative impact on sepsis survival are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate usual care variability and determine the differential effect of observed and predicted fluid resuscitation volumes on risk-adjusted hospital mortality for mechanically ventilated patients in shock. METHODS: We performed a retrospective outcome analysis of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care units using the 2013 Premier Hospital Database (Premier, Inc.). Observed and predicted hospital mortality were evaluated by observed and predicted day 1 fluid administration, using the difference in predicted and observed outcomes to adjust for disease severity between groups. Both predictive models were validated using a second large administrative database (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, and cost. RESULTS: Among 33,831 patients, observed hospital mortality was incrementally higher than predicted for each additional liter of day 1 fluid beginning at 7 L (40.9% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.008). Compared to patients that received expected (± 1.5 L predicted) day 1 fluid volumes, greater-than-expected fluid resuscitation was associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality (52.3% vs. 45.0%, p < 0.0001) among all patients with shock and among a subgroup of shock patients with comorbid conditions predictive of lower fluid volume administration (47.1% vs. 41.5%, p < 0.0001). However, in patients with shock but without such conditions, both greater-than-expected (57.5% vs. 49.2%, p < 0.0001) and less-than-expected (52.1% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.037) day 1 fluid resuscitation were associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Highly variable day 1 fluid resuscitation was associated with a non-uniform impact on risk-adjusted hospital mortality among distinct subgroups of mechanically ventilated patients with shock. These findings support closer evaluation of fluid resuscitation strategies that include broadly applied fluid volume targets in the early phase of shock resuscitation.
