Physicians' judgments of the risks of cardiac procedures. Differences between cardiologists and other internists

Job Matters

Background— Percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR) for aortic stenosis is an attractive alternative to operative valve replacement. Several devices are evaluated, but their efficacy and safety are critically discussed. An interdisciplinary approach with collaboration of cardiac surgeons and cardiologists is widely requested. We analyzed how cardiologists and cardiac surgeons assess the possibilities and risks of PAVR and whether there are substantial differences between the judgments of these 2 groups.

Methods and Results— Fifty-one cardiologists and 54 cardiac surgeons from German hospitals completed an online questionnaire consisting of 11 questions dealing with typical risks and benefits of PAVR. Answers to all questions differed significantly between surgeons and cardiologists. Risks as impaired hemodynamic outcome, paravalvular leakage, or embolic events were deemed higher for PAVR than for an operation from both groups, but cardiologists rated those risks significantly lower than cardiac surgeons ( P <0.01 for all questions). A regression analysis with a latent variable approach for possible advantages of PAVR (like minor operative trauma, faster recovery, less pain) showed that the fact of being a cardiologist has a significant impact on the rating of PAVR advantages ( r =0.719, P <0.01), whereas personal experience showed no significant effect.

Conclusions— Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons agree on possible risks and advantages of PAVR, but the extent differs significantly between the 2 groups. Cardiologists have a far more optimistic view of PAVR and are likely to favor an interventional approach. More and better evidence based information may help to overcome group related prejudices.

Resident physicians' life expectancy estimates and colon cancer screening recommendations in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer screening recommendations for patients aged 75 years and older should account for variation in older adults' health states, life expectancies, and potential to benefit from screening.

PURPOSE

To assess if resident physicians incorporate health state and life expectancy information when making recommendations about colon cancer screening for adults aged 75 years and older.

METHODS

Resident physicians at a university internal medicine program completed a survey in which they made life expectancy estimates and screening recommendations for hypothetical 75- and 85-year-old women patients with good, fair, or poor health states. Outcomes of interest included accuracy of residents' life expectancy estimates (compared with life table data), effect of health state and life expectancy on screening recommendations, and whether providing life table information affected the initial screening recommendation for the 85-year-old hypothetical patients.

RESULTS

Residents' life expectancy estimates demonstrated moderate agreement with life table estimates. Their recommendations for colon cancer screening for the 75-year-old patient vignettes varied appropriately by health state and by their estimates of life expectancy. Receiving information about life expectancy from life tables affected residents' recommendations for one of the three 85-year-old hypothetical patients, the woman in good health. Many resident physicians reported uncertainty about the potential to benefit from screening for each patient scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident physicians appropriately used life expectancy and health state to make colon cancer screening recommendations for older adults. Residents reported substantial uncertainty with regard to the potential benefit of screening.

Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol

BACKGROUND

There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin.

METHODS

For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete.

DISCUSSION

This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.

Older adults' beliefs about physician-estimated life expectancy: a cross-sectional survey

Background

Estimates of life expectancy assist physicians and patients in medical decision-making. The time-delayed benefits for many medical treatments make an older adult's life expectancy estimate particularly important for physicians. The purpose of this study is to assess older adults' beliefs about physician-estimated life expectancy.

Methods

We performed a mixed qualitative-quantitative cross-sectional study in which 116 healthy adults aged 70+ were recruited from two local retirement communities. We interviewed them regarding their beliefs about physician-estimated life expectancy in the context of a larger study on cancer screening beliefs. Semi-structured interviews of 80 minutes average duration were performed in private locations convenient to participants. Demographic characteristics as well as cancer screening beliefs and beliefs about life expectancy were measured. Two independent researchers reviewed the open-ended responses and recorded the most common themes. The research team resolved disagreements by consensus.

Results

This article reports the life-expectancy results portion of the larger study. The study group (n = 116) was comprised of healthy, well-educated older adults, with almost a third over 85 years old, and none meeting criteria for dementia. Sixty-four percent (n = 73) felt that their physicians could not correctly estimate their life expectancy. Sixty-six percent (n = 75) wanted their physicians to talk with them about their life expectancy. The themes that emerged from our study indicate that discussions of life expectancy could help older adults plan for the future, maintain open communication with their physicians, and provide them knowledge about their medical conditions.

Conclusion

The majority of the healthy older adults in this study were open to discussions about life expectancy in the context of discussing cancer screening tests, despite awareness that their physicians' estimates could be inaccurate. Since about a third of participants perceived these discussions as not useful or even harmful, physicians should first ascertain patients' preferences before discussing their life expectancies.

Physicians' judgments of survival after medical management and mortality risk reduction due to revascularization procedures for patients with coronary artery disease

STUDY OBJECTIVE

s: To assess the accuracy of physicians' judgments of survival probability for medically managed patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and of the absolute risk reduction of mortality due to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for such patients; and relationships among these judgments and the physicians' propensity to perform revascularization.

DESIGN

Two surveys (for three-vessel or two-vessel CAD) for patients presenting with stable CAD, currently managed medically, and without other life-limiting problems.

SETTING

Multiple educational conferences, 1996-1997.

PARTICIPANTS

Conference attendees.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Main outcomes were proportions of patients for whom the physicians would recommend revascularization (CABG for three-vessel CAD, CABG or PTCA for two-vessel CAD), and judgments of the proportions of medically managed patients who would be alive after 5 years, 7 years, and 11 years, and of absolute risk reduction of mortality due to CABG (or PTCA for two-vessel CAD). At least one half of the participants judged the survival rate of medically managed patients with three-vessel or two-vessel CAD to be less than the lowest rates supported by the best available evidence. More than one fourth judged the absolute risk reduction due to CABG to be higher than the highest values based on such evidence. Physicians' propensity to perform revascularization correlated inversely with their judgments of survival given medical management, and with their judgments of absolute risk reduction due to revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians may overuse revascularization because of excessive pessimism about survival of medically managed patients, and excessive optimism about the survival benefits of revascularization.

Variability in the assessment of adverse events in a multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Consistent documentation, characterization, and evaluation of adverse events (AEs) are needed during multicenter clinical trials to ensure accuracy of data reported to the US Food and Drug Administration and in the medical literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize variations in the assessment of AEs by clinical trial personnel.

METHODS

During the annual meeting of personnel from a multicenter, controlled clinical trial of an investigational new drug treatment for opioid dependence, an oral presentation of procedures for AE data collection was given to 25 principal investigators and ancillary study personnel who assessed AEs for the study. A post-test using 3 hypothetical AE cases in which AEs were categorized by type of reaction, relatedness to study drug, severity, action taken, and outcome was completed by study participants. Cases and expected responses were reviewed for content and validity by clinical research pharmacists who were not involved with the study. The level of agreement with expected responses was assessed using McNemar symmetry chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Assessments of type of AE, relatedness to study drug, and severity were less frequently aligned with expected responses than were action taken and outcome (P < 0.013). Less consistency with expected responses was found in I case than in the other 2, suggesting that certain types of AEs may be more difficult to assess.

CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable variability in categorization of AEs in an exercise following training for AE data collection. Type of report, relatedness, and severity were found to have more variability in reporting than did action taken or outcome. The results suggest that unless data are gathered to verify reliability of reporting, subcategorization of AE data should be undertaken cautiously. Further research is needed regarding methods for improving consistency in reporting of AEs.

Poor long-term survival after coronary angiography in patients with renal insufficiency

Cardiovascular disease is common among dialysis patients, but much less is known regarding non-dialysis-dependent renal insufficiency (NDDRI) and its association with cardiac disease. We undertook a study to assess the impact of renal insufficiency on survival post-coronary angiography by comparing three groups of patients: dialysis-dependent patients, patients with NDDRI (creatinine > 2.3 mg/dL), and a reference group with creatinine levels less than 2.3 mg/dL and not on dialysis therapy. We used a prospective cohort that consisted of all patients undergoing coronary angiography in Alberta, Canada, from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997. Of the 16,989 patients, 196 patients (1.2%) were on dialysis therapy, 262 patients (1.5%) had NDDRI, and 16,531 patients (97.3%) formed the reference group. Mortality rates 1 year after angiography were 30.2% for patients with NDDRI, 15.8% for dialysis patients, and 4.1% for the reference group. Compared with the reference group, crude 4-year survival was significantly worse for dialysis patients and those with NDDRI, with hazard ratios of 4.05 (95% confidence interval, 3.02 to 5.42) and 7.32 (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 8.97), respectively. Even after adjusting for clinical risk factors, survival remained worse for dialysis patients and those with NDDRI, with hazard ratios of 2.59 (95% confidence interval, 1.92 to 3.49) and 2.51 (95% confidence interval, 2.02 to 3.12), respectively. We conclude that renal insufficiency, both dialysis dependent and non-dialysis dependent, is an independent risk factor for increased mortality and poor long-term survival among patients undergoing coronary angiography.

A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of physician specialty on the knowledge, management, and outcomes of patients with coronary disease or heart failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE from 1980 to 1997, as well as bibliographic references to articles about the effects of physician specialty on the knowledge, treatment, and outcomes of patients with coronary disease or heart failure in the United States.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles met our criteria for inclusion (including eight that involved knowledge or self-reported practices, 14 that described actual practice patterns, and six that measured clinical outcomes). Cardiologists were more knowledgeable than generalist physicians about the optimal evaluation and management of coronary disease but not about the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for heart failure. Patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction were more likely to receive proven medical therapies, and possibly had improved outcomes, if they were treated by cardiologists. The use of lipid-lowering drugs after myocardial infarction was also more common among patients of cardiologists. ACE inhibitor use for heart failure was probably greater, and short-term readmission rates were lower, with cardiology care.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with coronary disease or heart failure in the United States who are treated by cardiologists appear more likely to receive evidence-based care and probably have better outcomes. Investigation of collaborative models of care and innovative efforts to improve the use of proven therapies by physicians are needed.

One size does not fit all: questions to answer before intervening to change physician behavior

BACKGROUND

Many interventions have been conducted to change physician behavior, but there is not much evidence regarding their effectiveness. A list of questions is proposed for those who would attempt such interventions: 1. Does the behavior (or decision making) need to be changed? This implies the next two questions. 1a. Is there a logical, evidence-based argument that one decision alternative is preferable for a particular situation? If the would-be behavior changer cannot make an evidence-based argument for changing behavior, there is little moral authority to intervene. 1b. Is there evidence that physicians are not choosing this decision alternative when they should? Interventions are often prompted by evidence that utilization of an alternative was too high or low, but physicians' decisions are not the only determinants of utilization. 2. What is the problem with the decision making? Common sense suggests that different problems require different solutions. Yet interventions are often pursued in the absence of clear information about the reasons physicians did not exhibit the preferred behavior. 3. How could the decision making best be changed? Finding the cognitive problems that caused "wrong" behavior should directly lead to the design of simple, targeted, effective interventions to change this behavior. The judgment and decision making psychology literature suggests that general instruction in reasoning and probability may improve judgments and decision processes.

SUMMARY

Physicians' behavior appears to be resistant to change. Understanding why the behavior should be changed and what caused it may make the process of designing interventions more complicated. The resulting interventions, however, are more likely to be simple and successful.

Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: how you ask matters

BACKGROUND

Some studies suggest that women dramatically overestimate the risk of having breast cancer while others conclude that they underestimate it. To understand better how women perceive the chance of getting breast cancer, the authors asked women to estimate the risk in several ways. Each woman's answer was related to her actual risk.

METHODS

Women were randomly selected from a registry of female veterans in New England. A mailed questionnaire asked each woman to estimate her ten-year risk of dying from breast cancer as a number out of 1,000 ("___ in 1,000" perceived risk) and whether this risk was higher than, the same as, or lower than that of an average woman her age (comparative perceived risk). The woman was also asked to compare her risk of dying from breast cancer with her risk of dying from heart disease. Risk-factor data were collected so that each woman's actual risk of breast cancer death could be estimated (actual risk).

RESULTS

201 women had complete data. The median age of the respondents was 62 years (range 27-80), and 98% were high school graduates. Most women (98%) overestimated the "___ in 1,000" risk of breast cancer death-half by eightfold or more (interquartile range, 4-36-fold overestimates). In contrast, only 10% of these women thought that they were at higher risk than an average woman their age. Most correctly thought that their risk of dying from breast cancer was lower than their risk of dying from heart disease. The women's "____in 1,000" perceived risks of breast cancer death were unrelated to their actual risks and had no significant agreement with an external bench-mark of importantly "high risk" (i.e., met risk criteria for the Tamoxifen primary prevention trial). In contrast, the women's comparative perceptions of being at low, average or high risk were related to actual risks and significantly agreed with the "high risk" benchmark. Most women not at importantly "high risk" correctly classified themselves; however, almost two thirds of "high risk" women misclassified themselves as "average or lower than average risk."

CONCLUSIONS

The method used to elicit perceptions of risk matters. These women's responses to the comparative questions showed that they "knew more" about their actual risks than their open-ended numeric responses suggested.

Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography--do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other?

BACKGROUND

Evaluations of the appropriateness of medical care are important to monitor the quality of care and to contain costs and enhance safety by reducing inappropriate care. Experts' views are usually incorporated into evaluations of appropriateness. However, practicing physicians may not concur with these views, and physicians' clinical backgrounds may influence their beliefs.

METHODS

We asked 1058 internists, family practitioners, and cardiologists in California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas to rate the appropriateness of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction for 20 common indications. Nine clinical experts also rated these indications using an established consensus method.

RESULTS

For 17 of the 20 indications, median ratings of surveyed physicians and the expert panel agreed within 1 unit on a 9-unit scale. Patients' older age had a negative effect on ratings by the expert panel but not on ratings by surveyed physicians. In multivariable analyses of surveyed physicians, cardiologists rated angiography as significantly more appropriate than did primary care physicians for complicated indications, and for uncomplicated indications cardiologists who performed invasive procedures gave higher appropriateness ratings for angiography than did cardiologists who did not perform such procedures and primary care physicians. For uncomplicated indications, physicians from hospitals providing coronary angioplasty and bypass surgery rated angiography as more appropriate than physicians from other hospitals. Physicians from New York and those employed by health maintenance organizations rated angiography as less appropriate than other physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveyed physicians agreed with clinical experts about the appropriateness of coronary angiography after myocardial infarction for most indications, indicating that well-designed expert panels can closely reflect the views of practicing physicians. Variations in beliefs among practicing physicians suggest that evaluations of medical practice should incorporate the views of a range of relevant types of physicians.

An international comparison of physicians' judgments of outcome rates of cardiac procedures and attitudes toward risk, uncertainty, justifiability, and regret

OBJECTIVE

Compare U.K. and U.S. physicians' judgments of population probabilities of important outcomes of invasive cardiac procedures; and values held by them about risk, uncertainty, regret, and justifiability relevant to utilization of cardiac treatments.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University hospital and VA medical center in the United States; two teaching hospitals in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

171 housestaff and attendings at U.S. teaching hospitals; 51 physician trainees and consultants at U.K. hospitals.

MEASURES

Judgments of probabilities of severe complications and deaths due to Swan-Ganz catheterization, cardiac catheterization, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); judgments of malpractice risks for case vignettes; Nightingale's risk-aversion instrument; Gerrity's reaction-to-uncertainty instrument; questions about need to justify decisions; responses to case vignettes regarding regret.

RESULTS

The U.S. physicians judged rates of two bad outcomes of cardiac procedures (complications due to cardiac catheterization; death due to CABG) to be significantly higher (p < or = 0.01) than did the U.K. physicians (U.S. medians, 5 and 3.5, respectively; U.K. medians 3 and 2). The median ratio of (risk of malpractice suit I error of omission)/(risk of suit I error of commission) judged by U.K. physicians, 3, was significantly (p=0.0006) higher than that judged by U.S. physicians, 1.5. The U.K. physicians were less often risk-seeking in the context of possible losses than the U.S. physicians (odds ratio for practicing in the U.K. as a predictor of risk seeking 0.3, p=0.003). The U.K. physicians had significantly more discomfort with uncertainty than did the U.S. physicians, as reflected by higher scores on the stress scale (U.K. median 48, U.S. 42, p=0.0001) and the reluctance-to-disclose-uncertainty scale (U.K. 40, U.S. 37, p < 0.0001) of the Gerrity instrument. There was no clear international difference in perceived need to justify decisions, or in regret.

CONCLUSIONS

The results were not clearly consistent with the uncertainty hypothesis that international practice variation is due to differences in judged rates of outcomes of therapy or with the imperfect-agency hypothesis that practice variation is due to differences in physicians' personal values. The causes and implications of practice variations remain unclear.