The Triage Capability of Laypersons: Retrospective Exploratory Analysis.
accuracy
care
care navigation
decision
decision support
digital health
emergency
error
female
health professional
male
medical
patient
patient-centered care
self-assessment
self-triage
sensitivity
support
symptom checker
triage
urgency assessment
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Oct 2022
12 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
24
04
2022
accepted:
16
08
2022
revised:
08
08
2022
entrez:
12
10
2022
pubmed:
13
10
2022
medline:
13
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although medical decision-making may be thought of as a task involving health professionals, many decisions, including critical health-related decisions are made by laypersons alone. Specifically, as the first step to most care episodes, it is the patient who determines whether and where to seek health care (triage). Overcautious self-assessments (ie, overtriaging) may lead to overutilization of health care facilities and overcrowded emergency departments, whereas imprudent decisions (ie, undertriaging) constitute a risk to the patient's health. Recently, patient-facing decision support systems, commonly known as symptom checkers, have been developed to assist laypersons in these decisions. The purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing laypersons' ability to self-triage and their risk averseness in self-triage decisions. We analyzed publicly available data on 91 laypersons appraising 45 short fictitious patient descriptions (case vignettes; N=4095 appraisals). Using signal detection theory and descriptive and inferential statistics, we explored whether the type of medical decision laypersons face, their confidence in their decision, and sociodemographic factors influence their triage accuracy and the type of errors they make. We distinguished between 2 decisions: whether emergency care was required (decision 1) and whether self-care was sufficient (decision 2). The accuracy of detecting emergencies (decision 1) was higher (mean 82.2%, SD 5.9%) than that of deciding whether any type of medical care is required (decision 2, mean 75.9%, SD 5.25%; t Our study suggests that laypersons are overcautious in deciding whether they require medical care at all, but they miss identifying a considerable portion of emergencies. Our results further indicate that women are more risk averse than men in both types of decisions. Layperson participants made most triage errors when they were certain of their own appraisal. Thus, they might not follow or even seek advice (eg, from symptom checkers) in most instances where advice would be useful.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although medical decision-making may be thought of as a task involving health professionals, many decisions, including critical health-related decisions are made by laypersons alone. Specifically, as the first step to most care episodes, it is the patient who determines whether and where to seek health care (triage). Overcautious self-assessments (ie, overtriaging) may lead to overutilization of health care facilities and overcrowded emergency departments, whereas imprudent decisions (ie, undertriaging) constitute a risk to the patient's health. Recently, patient-facing decision support systems, commonly known as symptom checkers, have been developed to assist laypersons in these decisions.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing laypersons' ability to self-triage and their risk averseness in self-triage decisions.
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed publicly available data on 91 laypersons appraising 45 short fictitious patient descriptions (case vignettes; N=4095 appraisals). Using signal detection theory and descriptive and inferential statistics, we explored whether the type of medical decision laypersons face, their confidence in their decision, and sociodemographic factors influence their triage accuracy and the type of errors they make. We distinguished between 2 decisions: whether emergency care was required (decision 1) and whether self-care was sufficient (decision 2).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The accuracy of detecting emergencies (decision 1) was higher (mean 82.2%, SD 5.9%) than that of deciding whether any type of medical care is required (decision 2, mean 75.9%, SD 5.25%; t
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that laypersons are overcautious in deciding whether they require medical care at all, but they miss identifying a considerable portion of emergencies. Our results further indicate that women are more risk averse than men in both types of decisions. Layperson participants made most triage errors when they were certain of their own appraisal. Thus, they might not follow or even seek advice (eg, from symptom checkers) in most instances where advice would be useful.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36222793
pii: v6i10e38977
doi: 10.2196/38977
pmc: PMC9607917
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e38977Informations de copyright
©Marvin Kopka, Markus A Feufel, Felix Balzer, Malte L Schmieding. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 12.10.2022.
Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Dec 2;2(12):e1918561
pubmed: 31880791
J Med Internet Res. 2022 May 10;24(5):e31810
pubmed: 35536633
Cureus. 2021 Mar 19;13(3):e14002
pubmed: 33884243
QJM. 2021 Aug 29;114(5):311-317
pubmed: 32516375
J Health Econ. 2020 Mar;70:102279
pubmed: 32062054
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 10;23(3):e24475
pubmed: 33688845
BMJ Open. 2022 May 2;12(5):e054046
pubmed: 35501086
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jan 30;22(1):e14679
pubmed: 32012052
Med J Aust. 2020 Jun;212(11):514-519
pubmed: 32391611
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0254088
pubmed: 34265845
Int Emerg Nurs. 2019 Mar;43:67-73
pubmed: 30381142
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Apr;64(4):556-563
pubmed: 31898315
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Mar 1;36(3):485-491
pubmed: 28264950
Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Jan;113:103788
pubmed: 33120136
J Emerg Nurs. 2010 Jul;36(4):370-4
pubmed: 20624578
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Jun;61(6):605-611.e6
pubmed: 23218508
J Emerg Nurs. 2018 May;44(3):258-266
pubmed: 28750891
JMIR Hum Factors. 2022 May 3;9(2):e35219
pubmed: 35503248
BMJ. 2015 Jul 08;351:h3480
pubmed: 26157077
CJEM. 2019 Nov;21(6):789-792
pubmed: 31057137
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5):448-55
pubmed: 17446831
JAMA. 2000 Apr 5;283(13):1715-22
pubmed: 10755498
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1986 May;8(3):145-51
pubmed: 3710146
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2020 May;27(1):
pubmed: 32385041
Acta Clin Belg. 2022 Apr;77(2):301-306
pubmed: 33124524
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Nov 25;173(21):1952-8
pubmed: 23979070