Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 25;9(8):e105445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105445. eCollection 2014.

Assessing the validity of using serious game technology to analyze physician decision making.

Author information

1
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
2
RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
3
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
4
Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
5
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
6
Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Physician non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines remains a critical barrier to high quality care. Serious games (using gaming technology for serious purposes) have emerged as a method of studying physician decision making. However, little is known about their validity.

METHODS:

We created a serious game and evaluated its construct validity. We used the decision context of trauma triage in the Emergency Department of non-trauma centers, given widely accepted guidelines that recommend the transfer of severely injured patients to trauma centers. We designed cases with the premise that the representativeness heuristic influences triage (i.e. physicians make transfer decisions based on archetypes of severely injured patients rather than guidelines). We randomized a convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians to a control or cognitive load arm, and compared performance (disposition decisions, number of orders entered, time spent per case). We hypothesized that cognitive load would increase the use of heuristics, increasing the transfer of representative cases and decreasing the transfer of non-representative cases.

FINDINGS:

We recruited 209 physicians, of whom 168 (79%) began and 142 (68%) completed the task. Physicians transferred 31% of severely injured patients during the game, consistent with rates of transfer for severely injured patients in practice. They entered the same average number of orders in both arms (control (C): 10.9 [SD 4.8] vs. cognitive load (CL):10.7 [SD 5.6], p = 0.74), despite spending less time per case in the control arm (C: 9.7 [SD 7.1] vs. CL: 11.7 [SD 6.7] minutes, p<0.01). Physicians were equally likely to transfer representative cases in the two arms (C: 45% vs. CL: 34%, p = 0.20), but were more likely to transfer non-representative cases in the control arm (C: 38% vs. CL: 26%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS:

We found that physicians made decisions consistent with actual practice, that we could manipulate cognitive load, and that load increased the use of heuristics, as predicted by cognitive theory.

PMID:
25153149
PMCID:
PMC4143260
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0105445
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center