Open AccessImpact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE)
Author(s) -
João Gabriel Rosa Ramos,
Otávio T. Ranzani,
Roger D. Dias,
Daniel Neves Forte
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
revista brasileira de terapia intensiva
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.431
H-Index - 19
eISSN - 1982-4335
pISSN - 0103-507X
DOI - 10.5935/0103-507x.20210029
Subject(s) - medicine , intensive care unit , randomized controlled trial , intensive care , triage , concordance , vignette , intensivist , emergency medicine , intensive care medicine , surgery , psychology , social psychology
Objective To assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions. Methods This study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission ( status quo ) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts. Results We analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61). Conclusion Intensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.