Objective . To ascertain whether a physician who uses a computer-assisted diagnostic support system (DSS) would be rated less capable than a physician who does not.Method. Students assumed the role of a patient with a possible ankle fracture (experiment 1) or a possible deep vein thrombosis (experiment 2). They read a scenario that described an interaction with a physician who used no DSS, one who used an unspecified DSS, or one who used a DSS developed at a prestigious medical center. Participants were then asked to rate the interaction on 5 criteria, the most important of which was the diagnostic ability of the physician. In experiment 3, 74 patients in the waiting room of a clinic were randomly assigned to the same 3 types of groups as used in experiment 1. In experiment 4, 131 3rd- and 4th-year medical students read a scenario of a physician-patient interaction and were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: the physician used no DSS, heeded the recommendation of a DSS, defied a recommendation of a DSS by treating in a less aggressive manner, or defied a recommendation of a DSS by treating in a more aggressive manner. Results. The participants always deemed the physician who used no decision aid to have the highest diagnostic ability. Conclusion. Patients may surmise that a physician who uses a DSS is not as capable as a physician who makes the diagnosis with no assistance from a DSS.Key words:decision support techniques; diagnosis computer assisted; patient satisfaction.(Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 189—202)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Kaplan B.Evaluating informatics applications: clinical decision support systems literature review. Int J Med Inform.2001; 64:15—37.
2.
Balas EAInformation systems can prevent errors and improve quality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:398—9.
3.
Sim I., Gorman P., Greenes RA, et al. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:527—34.
4.
Pozen MW, D'Agostino RB, Mitchell JB, et al. The usefulness of a predictive instrument to reduce inappropriate admissions to the coronary care unit. Ann Intern Med.1980;92:238—42.
5.
Dawes RM, Faust D., Meehl PEClinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243:1668—74.
de Dombal FT , Dallos V., McAdam Waf.Can computer aided teaching packages improve clinical care in patients with acute abdominal pain?BMJ.1991;310:1495—7.
8.
Ridderikhoff J., van Herk E.A diagnostic support system in general practice: is it feasible?Int J Med Inform.1997;45:133—43.
9.
Friedman DP, Elstein AS, Wolf FMEnhancement of clinicians' diagnostic reasoning by computer-based consultation: a multisite study of 2 systems. JAMA.1999 ;282:1851—5.
Chase CR, Vacek PM, Shinozaki T., Giard AM, Ashikaga T.Medical information management: improving the transfer of research results to presurgical evaluation. Med Care.1983;21:410—24.
12.
Ebell MH, Smith MA, Barry HC, Ives K., Carey M.Does this patient have strep throat?JAMA.2000;284:2912—8.
13.
Centor RM, Witherspoon JM, Dalton HP, Brody CE, Link K.The diagnosis of strep throat in adults in the emergency room. Med Decis Making. 1981;1:239—46.
14.
Walsh BT, Bookheim WW, Johnson RC, Tompkins RKRecognition of Streptococcal pharyngitis in adults. Arch Intern Med.1975;135:1493—7.
15.
Stiell I.Ottawa ankle rules. Can Fam Physician. 1996 ;42: 478—80.
16.
Hunt DL, Haynes B., Hanna SE, Smith K.Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes. JAMA.1998;280:1339—46.
17.
Kassirer JPA report card on computer-assisted diagnosis— the grade C. New Engl J Med.1994;330:1824—5.
18.
RochaBHSC, Christenson JC, Evans RS, Gardner RM. Clinicians' response to computerized detection of infections. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:117—25.
19.
Overhage JM , Tierney WM, McDonald CJComputer reminders to implement preventive care guidelines for hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med.1996;156:1551—6.
20.
Keefe B., Subramanian U., Tierney WM, et al. Provider response to computer-based care suggestions for chronic heart failure. Med Care.2005;43:461—5.
21.
Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A., et al. Awareness and use of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules in 5 countries: can publication alone be enough to change practice?Ann Emerg Med.2001; 37:259—66.
22.
Hilton NZ, Simmons JLThe influence of actuarial risk assessment in clinical judgments and tribunal decisions about mentally disordered offenders in maximum security. Law Hum Beh.2001;25:393—408.
23.
Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NRWhy don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA.1999;282:1458—65.
24.
Meehl PECauses and effects of my disturbing little book. J Pers Assess.1986;50:370—5.
25.
Cruikshank PJPatient ratings of doctors using computers . Soc Sci Med.1985;21:615—22.
26.
Garrison GM , Bernard ME21st century health care: the effect of computer use by physicians on patient satisfaction at a family medicine clinic. Fam Med.2002;34:362—8.
27.
Solomon GL, Dechter M.Are patients pleased with computer use in the examination room?J Fam Pract.1995;41:242—4.
28.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G., Rimer BKGeneral performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37—44.
29.
Schwartz LM , Woloshin S., Black WC, Welch GHThe role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med.1997;127:966—71.
30.
Ayanian JZ, Berwick DMDo physicians have a bias toward action? A classic study revisited. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:154—8. 31. Bakwin H.Pseudodoxia pediatrica. New Engl J Med.1945 ; 232:691—7.
31.
Pezzo MV, Pezzo SPPhysician evaluation after medical errors: does having a computer decision aid help or hurt in hindsight?Med Decis Making. 2006;26:48—56.
32.
Kelley HHThe process of causal attribution. Am Psychol.1973;28:107—28.
33.
Thorndike ELA constant error on psychological rating. J Appl Psychol.1920;4:25—9.
Arkes HR, Dawes RM, Christensen C.Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organ Behav Hum Dec.1986;37:93—110.
36.
Whitecotton SMThe effects of experience and confidence on decision aid reliance: a causal model. Behav Res Account.1996; 8: 194—216.
37.
Latham GP, Whyte G.The futility of utility analysis. Pers Psychol.1994;47:31—46.
38.
Whyte G., Latham GPThe futility of utility analysis revisited: when even an expert fails. Pers Psychol.1997;50:601—10.
39.
Dawes RMThe robust beauty of improper linear models. Am Psychol.1979;34:571—82.
40.
Meehl PECauses and effects of my disturbing little book. J Pers Assess.1986;50:370—5.
41.
Yates JF, Veinott ES, Patalano ALHard decisions, bad decisions: on decision quality and decision aiding. In: Schneider SL, Shanteau J, eds. Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p 13—63.
42.
Hammond KRHuman Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
43.
Hogarth RMEducating Intuition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.
44.
Arkes HRImpediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact. J Consult Clin Psych. 1981;49: 323—30.
