The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study

Desiree Fleck,1,* Hossam Gad,2,* Beth Hogan Quigley,1,* Mohamed Antar,2 Ahmed Sayed Ahmed,3 Mohamed A Mahmoud,3 Krzysztof Laudanski2 1Department of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fleck D, Gad H, Hogan Quigley B, Antar M, Sayed Ahmed A, Mahmoud MA, Laudanski K
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Dove Medical Press 2025-05-01
Series:Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.dovepress.com/the-effect-of-clinical-ambiguity-on-the-decision-making-process-among--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JMDH
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849683025451810816
author Fleck D
Gad H
Hogan Quigley B
Antar M
Sayed Ahmed A
Mahmoud MA
Laudanski K
author_facet Fleck D
Gad H
Hogan Quigley B
Antar M
Sayed Ahmed A
Mahmoud MA
Laudanski K
author_sort Fleck D
collection DOAJ
description Desiree Fleck,1,* Hossam Gad,2,* Beth Hogan Quigley,1,* Mohamed Antar,2 Ahmed Sayed Ahmed,3 Mohamed A Mahmoud,3 Krzysztof Laudanski2 1Department of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Krzysztof Laudanski, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St Rochester, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA, Tel +1508-762-9587, Email laudanski.krzysztof@mayo.eduPurpose: Our study investigates how healthcare professionals in the Intensive Care Unit make decisions under highly ambiguous conditions, where the patient’s presentation triggers initial protocolized treatment but subsequently fails to respond to medical treatment. We hypothesize that providers with a low tolerance for ambiguity and specific risk-taking preferences are likely to rapidly engage in adequate evidence-based strategies when dealing with high-risk illnesses such as sepsis.Patients and Methods: This is a single-center cohort mixed method study of healthcare providers (attendings, fellows, residents, and advanced care providers) (n=138) using clinical vignettes (Vignette#1 representing the case of sepsis, Vignette#2 representing an ambiguous case). Participants were recruited using an internal Email distribution list (response rate 13.63%). Providers were asked to choose any number of specific therapies while being assessed for tolerance of ambiguity, denial mechanism, anxiety, prevalence of risk-taking behavior, optimism, and decision-making style.Results: Providers sparsely used antibiotics in vignette #2, while fluids were rarely given in vignette #1 during the first 48 hours. By day three, providers had implemented mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapies. Bicarbonate and corticosteroids were used significantly as collateral therapies. Study participants were not very tolerant of ambiguity, used defensive mechanisms, and more often used rational decision-making rather than intuitive decision-making. Healthcare experience correlated negatively with the stress of uncertainty, defensiveness, and rational thinking. Optimism correlated positively with years of healthcare experience. The percentage of intensive care unit responsibilities correlated with risk-taking behaviors and defensiveness. There was no difference between implementers of the bundle and never implementers in their demographic, professional, and psychological characteristics. A similar lack of correlation was seen between different levels of tolerance of ambiguity among providers.Conclusion: Providers’ experience working in the intensive care unit, combined with their level of optimism, seemed to influence the relatively low implementation of the sepsis bundle across two vignettes.Keywords: clinical decision-making, sepsis management, risk-taking behavior, tolerance of ambiguity, ICU providers, healthcare providers
format Article
id doaj-art-c2ef2385fa744d45b8d511ea7b5788fd
institution DOAJ
issn 1178-2390
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format Article
series Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
spelling doaj-art-c2ef2385fa744d45b8d511ea7b5788fd2025-08-20T03:24:00ZengDove Medical PressJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare1178-23902025-05-01Volume 18Issue 130913104103500The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods StudyFleck D0Gad H1Hogan Quigley B2Antar M3Sayed Ahmed A4Mahmoud MA5Laudanski K6Department of NursingDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative CareDepartment of NursingDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative CarePulmonary and Critical Care DivisionPulmonary and Critical Care DivisionDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative CareDesiree Fleck,1,* Hossam Gad,2,* Beth Hogan Quigley,1,* Mohamed Antar,2 Ahmed Sayed Ahmed,3 Mohamed A Mahmoud,3 Krzysztof Laudanski2 1Department of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Krzysztof Laudanski, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St Rochester, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA, Tel +1508-762-9587, Email laudanski.krzysztof@mayo.eduPurpose: Our study investigates how healthcare professionals in the Intensive Care Unit make decisions under highly ambiguous conditions, where the patient’s presentation triggers initial protocolized treatment but subsequently fails to respond to medical treatment. We hypothesize that providers with a low tolerance for ambiguity and specific risk-taking preferences are likely to rapidly engage in adequate evidence-based strategies when dealing with high-risk illnesses such as sepsis.Patients and Methods: This is a single-center cohort mixed method study of healthcare providers (attendings, fellows, residents, and advanced care providers) (n=138) using clinical vignettes (Vignette#1 representing the case of sepsis, Vignette#2 representing an ambiguous case). Participants were recruited using an internal Email distribution list (response rate 13.63%). Providers were asked to choose any number of specific therapies while being assessed for tolerance of ambiguity, denial mechanism, anxiety, prevalence of risk-taking behavior, optimism, and decision-making style.Results: Providers sparsely used antibiotics in vignette #2, while fluids were rarely given in vignette #1 during the first 48 hours. By day three, providers had implemented mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapies. Bicarbonate and corticosteroids were used significantly as collateral therapies. Study participants were not very tolerant of ambiguity, used defensive mechanisms, and more often used rational decision-making rather than intuitive decision-making. Healthcare experience correlated negatively with the stress of uncertainty, defensiveness, and rational thinking. Optimism correlated positively with years of healthcare experience. The percentage of intensive care unit responsibilities correlated with risk-taking behaviors and defensiveness. There was no difference between implementers of the bundle and never implementers in their demographic, professional, and psychological characteristics. A similar lack of correlation was seen between different levels of tolerance of ambiguity among providers.Conclusion: Providers’ experience working in the intensive care unit, combined with their level of optimism, seemed to influence the relatively low implementation of the sepsis bundle across two vignettes.Keywords: clinical decision-making, sepsis management, risk-taking behavior, tolerance of ambiguity, ICU providers, healthcare providershttps://www.dovepress.com/the-effect-of-clinical-ambiguity-on-the-decision-making-process-among--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JMDHClinical decision-makingSepsis managementRisk-taking behaviorTolerance of ambiguityICU providersHealthcare providers
spellingShingle Fleck D
Gad H
Hogan Quigley B
Antar M
Sayed Ahmed A
Mahmoud MA
Laudanski K
The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Clinical decision-making
Sepsis management
Risk-taking behavior
Tolerance of ambiguity
ICU providers
Healthcare providers
title The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study
title_full The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study
title_fullStr The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study
title_full_unstemmed The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study
title_short The Effect of Clinical Ambiguity on the Decision-Making Process Among Intensive Care Unit Providers in Northern America Using Clinical Vignettes in Mixed Methods Study
title_sort effect of clinical ambiguity on the decision making process among intensive care unit providers in northern america using clinical vignettes in mixed methods study
topic Clinical decision-making
Sepsis management
Risk-taking behavior
Tolerance of ambiguity
ICU providers
Healthcare providers
url https://www.dovepress.com/the-effect-of-clinical-ambiguity-on-the-decision-making-process-among--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JMDH
work_keys_str_mv AT fleckd theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT gadh theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT hoganquigleyb theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT antarm theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT sayedahmeda theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT mahmoudma theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT laudanskik theeffectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT fleckd effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT gadh effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT hoganquigleyb effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT antarm effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT sayedahmeda effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT mahmoudma effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy
AT laudanskik effectofclinicalambiguityonthedecisionmakingprocessamongintensivecareunitprovidersinnorthernamericausingclinicalvignettesinmixedmethodsstudy