The effects of computerised decision support systems on nursing and allied health professional performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review and user contextualisation.

Background: Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are widely used by nurses and allied health professionals but their effect on clinical performance and patient outcomes is uncertain. Objectives: Evaluate the effects of clinical decision support systems use on nurses', midwives' and allied health professionals' performance and patient outcomes and sense-check the results with developers and users. Eligibility criteria: Comparative studies (randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) and repeated measures studies comparing) of CDSS versus usual care from nurses, midwives or other allied health professionals. Information sources: Nineteen bibliographic databases searched October 2019 and February 2021. Risk of bias: Assessed using structured risk of bias guidelines; almost all included studies were at high risk of bias. Synthesis of results: Heterogeneity between interventions and outcomes necessitated narrative synthesis and grouping by: similarity in focus or CDSS-type, targeted health professionals, patient group, outcomes reported and study design. Included studies: Of 36,106 initial records, 262 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 35 included: 28 RCTs (80%), 3 CBA studies (8.6%), 3 ITS (8.6%) and 1 non-randomised trial, a total of 1318 health professionals and 67,595 patient participants. Few studies were multi-site and most focused on decision-making by nurses (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). Standalone, computer-based CDSS featured in 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile or handheld technology. Care processes - including adherence to guidance - were positively influenced in 47% of the measures adopted. For example, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling, and documenting care were improved if they used CDSS. Patient care outcomes were statistically - if not always clinically - significantly improved in 40.7% of indicators. For example, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity, and accurate triaging were features of professionals using CDSS compared to those who were not. Evidence limitations: Allied health professionals (AHPs) were underrepresented compared to nurses; systems, studies and outcomes were heterogeneous, preventing statistical aggregation; very wide confidence intervals around effects meant clinical significance was questionable; decision and implementation theory that would have helped interpret effects - including null effects - was largely absent; economic data were scant and diverse, preventing estimation of overall cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: CDSS can positively influence selected aspects of nurses', midwives' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. Comparative research is generally of low quality and outcomes wide ranging and heterogeneous. After more than a decade of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the effect on processes and outcomes remains uncertain. Higher-quality, theoretically informed, evaluative research that addresses the economics of CDSS development and implementation is still required. Future work: Developing nursing CDSS and primary research evaluation. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; 2023. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Registration: PROSPERO [number: CRD42019147773].

Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are software or computer-based technologies providing advice to professionals making clinical decisions ­ for example, which patients to treat first in emergency departments. CDSS improve some doctors' decisions and patients' outcomes, but we don't know if they improve nurses', midwives' and therapists' or other staff decisions and patient outcomes. Research into, and health professionals' use of, technology ­ for example, in video consultations ­ has grown since the last relevant systematic review in 2009. We systematically searched electronic databases for research measuring how well nurses, midwifes and other therapists/staff followed CDSS advice, how CDSS influence their decisions, how safe CDSS are, and their financial costs and benefits. We interviewed CDSS users and developers and some patient representatives from a general practice to help understand our findings. Of 35 relevant studies ­ from 36,106 initially found ­ most (71%) focused on nurses. Just over half (57%) involved hospital-based staff, and three-quarters (75%) were from richer countries like the USA or the UK. Research quality had not noticeably improved since 2009 and all studies were at risk of potentially misleading readers. CDSS improved care in just under half (47%) of professional behaviours, such as following hand-disinfection guidance, working out insulin doses, and sampling blood on time. Patient care ­ judged using outcomes like falls, pressure ulcers, diabetes control and triage accuracy ­ was better in 41% of the care measured. There wasn't enough evidence to judge CDSS safety or the financial costs and benefits of systems. CDSS can improve some nursing and therapist decisions and some patient outcomes. Studies mostly measure different behaviours and outcomes, making comparing them hard. Theories explaining or predicting how decision support systems might work are not used enough when designing, implementing or evaluating CDSS. More research into the financial costs and benefits of CDSS and higher-quality evidence of their effects are still needed. Whether decision support for nurses, midwives and other therapists reliably improves decision-making remains uncertain.

SEeking AnsweRs for Care Homes during the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID SEARCH).

The care and support of older people residing in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic has created new and unanticipated uncertainties for staff. In this short report, we present our analyses of the uncertainties of care home managers and staff expressed in a self-formed closed WhatsApp™ discussion group during the first stages of the pandemic in the UK. We categorised their wide-ranging questions to understand what information would address these uncertainties and provide support. We have been able to demonstrate that almost one-third of these uncertainties could have been tackled immediately through timely, responsive and unambiguous fact-based guidance. The other uncertainties require appraisal, synthesis and summary of existing evidence, commissioning or provision of a sector- informed research agenda for medium to long term. The questions represent wider internationally relevant care home pandemic-related uncertainties.

Assessment of interprofessional competence in undergraduate health professions education: protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments.

BACKGROUND: Health practitioners from different professions, and with differing competencies, need to collaborate to provide quality care. Competencies in interprofessional working need developing in undergraduate educational preparation. This paper reports the protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments to assess interprofessional learning in undergraduate health professionals' education. METHODS: We will search PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and ERIC from January 2010 onwards. A combination of search terms for interprofessional learning, health professions, psychometric properties, assessment of learning and assessment tools will be used. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles, abstracts and full-texts. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Quantitative and mixed-methods studies evaluating interprofessional learning in undergraduate health professions education (e.g. medicine, nursing, occupational and physical therapy, pharmacy and psychology) will be included. Methodological quality of each reported instrument, underpinning theoretical frameworks, and the effects of reported interventions will be assessed. The overall outcome will be the effectiveness of instruments used to assess interprofessional competence. Primary outcomes will be the psychometric properties (e.g. reliability, discriminant and internal validity) of instruments used. Secondary outcomes will include time from intervention to assessment, how items relate to specific performance/competencies (or general abstract constructs) and how scores are used (e.g. to grade students, to improve courses or research purposes). Quantitative summaries in tabular format and a narrative synthesis will allow recommendations to be made on the use of self-report instruments in practice. DISCUSSION: Many studies use self-report questionnaires as tools for developing meaningful interprofessional education activities and assessing students' interprofessional competence. This systematic review will evaluate both the benefits and limitations of reported instruments and help educators and researchers (i) choose the most appropriate existing self-report instruments to assess interprofessional competence and (ii) inform the design and conduct of interprofessional competency assessment using self-report instruments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/vrfjn].

Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: The Health and Social Care Act mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements in England. We undertook a controlled before and after study to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. METHODS: Nine Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the North of England received one of three interventions: (A) access to an evidence briefing service; (B) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (C) unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisations' ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service were sought. RESULTS: Over the course of the study, the service addressed 24 topics raised by participating CCGs. At 12 months, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCG capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCG relationships with researchers. Regardless of intervention received, participating CCGs indicated that they remained inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and in their capacity to acquire research. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little traceability of the use of evidence. Low baseline and follow-up response rates and missing data limit the reliability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Access to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear well intentioned but ad hoc users of research. Further research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research.

The cost-effectiveness of quality improvement projects: a conceptual framework, checklist and online tool for considering the costs and consequences of implementation-based quality improvement.

In resource constrained systems, decision makers should be concerned with the efficiency of implementing improvement techniques and technologies. Accordingly, they should consider both the costs and effectiveness of implementation as well as the cost-effectiveness of the innovation to be implemented. An approach to doing this effectively is encapsulated in the 'policy cost-effectiveness' approach. This paper outlines some of the theoretical and practical challenges to assessing policy cost-effectiveness (the cost-effectiveness of implementation projects). A checklist and associated (freely available) online application are also presented to help services develop more cost-effective implementation strategies.

Assessment of fidelity in an educational workshop designed to increase the uptake of a primary care alcohol screening recommendation.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Educational workshops are a commonly used quality improvement intervention. Often delivered by credible local health professionals who do not necessarily have skills in pedagogy, it can be challenging to achieve high intervention fidelity. This paper summarizes the fidelity assessment of a workshop designed to increase the uptake of a primary care alcohol screening recommendation. METHOD: Delivered in a single health region, the workshop comprised separate sessions delivered by three local health professionals, plus two role plays delivered by a commercial company. Sessions were tailored to local barriers. Meetings were held with presenters and an outline of the barriers was provided. Two researchers attended the workshop, rating the number of specified barriers targeted by presenters and their quality of delivery. Participant responsiveness was measured through attendees' feedback and intervention dose was calculated as the proportion of health professionals who attended and proportion of general practices represented. RESULTS: Exposure was low, with 62 of 545 health professionals from 30 of a possible 80 practices attending. Sixty-five per cent of the specified barriers were targeted. There was variability in quality of delivery and participant responsiveness; challenges included potential mixed messages, overreliance on didactic methods and certain barriers appearing easier to target than others. CONCLUSIONS: The framework provided a rounded assessment of intervention fidelity: intervention coverage was low, adherence was moderate and there was variability in the quality of delivery across presenters. Future studies testing the effectiveness of interventions delivered by local experts with and without brief training in pedagogy/behaviour change would be beneficial.

Cost and feasibility: an exploratory case study comparing use of a literature review method with questionnaires, interviews and focus groups to identify barriers for a behaviour-change intervention.

BACKGROUND: It is often recommended that behaviour-change interventions be tailored to barriers. There is a scarcity of research into the best method of barrier identification, although combining methods has been suggested to be beneficial. This paper compares the feasibility and costs of three different methods of barrier identification used in three implementation projects conducted in primary care. METHODS: Underpinned by a theory-base, project one used a questionnaire and interviews; project two used a single focus group and questionnaire, and project three used a literature review of published barriers. The feasibility of each project, as experienced by the research team, and labour costs are summarised. RESULTS: The literature review of published barriers was the least costly and most feasible method, being quick to conduct and avoiding the challenges of recruitment experienced when using interviews or a questionnaire. The feasibility of using questionnaires was further reduced by the time taken to develop the instruments. Conducting a single focus group was also found to be a more feasible method, taking less time than interviews to collect and analyse the barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the ease of recruitment, time required and cost of the different methods to collect barriers is crucial at the start of implementation studies. The literature review method is the least costly and most feasible method. Use of a single focus group was found to be more feasible than conducting individual interviews or administering a questionnaire, with less recruitment challenges experienced, and quicker data collection. Future research would benefit from comparing the robustness of the methods in terms of the comprehensiveness of barriers identified.

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a controlled before and after study involving CCGs in the North of England. Participating CCGs will receive one of three interventions to support the use of research evidence in their decision-making: 1) consulting plus responsive push of tailored evidence; 2) consulting plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or 3) standard service unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Our primary outcome will be changed at 12 months from baseline of a CCGs ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes will measure individual clinical leads and managers' intentions to use research evidence in decision making. Documentary evidence of the use of the outputs of the service will be sought. A process evaluation will evaluate the nature and success of the interactions both within the sites and between commissioners and researchers delivering the service. DISCUSSION: The proposed research will generate new knowledge of direct relevance and value to the NHS. The findings will help to clarify which elements of the service are of value in promoting the use of research evidence. Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act.

Identifying and enhancing risk thresholds in the detection of elder financial abuse: a signal detection analysis of professionals' decision making.

BACKGROUND: Financial abuse of elders is an under acknowledged problem and professionals' judgements contribute to both the prevalence of abuse and the ability to prevent and intervene. In the absence of a definitive "gold standard" for the judgement, it is desirable to try and bring novice professionals' judgemental risk thresholds to the level of competent professionals as quickly and effectively as possible. This study aimed to test if a training intervention was able to bring novices' risk thresholds for financial abuse in line with expert opinion. METHODS: A signal detection analysis, within a randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention, was undertaken to examine the effect on the ability of novices to efficiently detect financial abuse. Novices (n = 154) and experts (n = 33) judged "certainty of risk" across 43 scenarios; whether a scenario constituted a case of financial abuse or not was a function of expert opinion. Novices (n = 154) were randomised to receive either an on-line educational intervention to improve financial abuse detection (n = 78) or a control group (no on-line educational intervention, n = 76). Both groups examined 28 scenarios of abuse (11 "signal" scenarios of risk and 17 "noise" scenarios of no risk). After the intervention group had received the on-line training, both groups then examined 15 further scenarios (5 "signal" and 10 "noise" scenarios). RESULTS: Experts were more certain than the novices, pre (Mean 70.61 vs. 58.04) and post intervention (Mean 70.84 vs. 63.04); and more consistent. The intervention group (mean 64.64) were more certain of abuse post-intervention than the control group (mean 61.41, p = 0.02). Signal detection analysis of sensitivity (A´) and bias (C) revealed that this was due to the intervention shifting the novices' tendency towards saying "at risk" (C post intervention -.34) and away from their pre intervention levels of bias (C-.12). Receiver operating curves revealed more efficient judgments in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: An educational intervention can improve judgements of financial abuse amongst novice professionals.

Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: prioritising health service innovations.

Priorities for public health innovations are typically not considered equally by all members of the public. When faced with a choice between various innovation options, it is, therefore, possible that some respondents eliminate and/or select innovations based on certain characteristics. This paper proposes a flexible method for exploring and accommodating situations where respondents exhibit such behaviours, whilst addressing preference heterogeneity. We present an empirical case study on the public's preferences for health service innovations. We show that allowing for elimination-by-aspects and/or selection-by-aspects behavioural rules leads to substantial improvements in model fit and, importantly, has implications for willingness to pay estimates and scenario analysis.

Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Prioritising scarce resources for investment in innovation by publically funded health systems is unavoidable. Many healthcare systems wish to foster transparency and accountability in the decisions they make by incorporating the public in decision-making processes. This paper presents a unique conceptual approach exploring the public's preferences for health service innovations by viewing healthcare innovations as 'bundles' of characteristics. This decompositional approach allows policy-makers to compare numerous competing health service innovations without repeatedly administering surveys for specific innovation choices. METHODS: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was used to elicit preferences. Individuals chose from presented innovation options that they believe the UK National Health Service (NHS) should invest the most in. Innovations differed according to: (i) target population; (ii) target age; (iii) implementation time; (iv) uncertainty associated with their likely effects; (v) potential health benefits; and, (vi) cost to a taxpayer. This approach fosters multidimensional decision-making, rather than imposing a single decision criterion (e.g., cost, target age) in prioritisation. Choice data was then analysed using scale-adjusted Latent Class models to investigate variability in preferences and scale and valuations amongst respondents. RESULTS: Three latent classes with considerable heterogeneity in the preferences were present. Each latent class is composed of two consumer subgroups varying in the level of certainty in their choices. All groups preferred scientifically proven innovations, those with potential health benefits that cost less. There were, however, some important differences in their preferences for innovation investment choices: Class-1 (54%) prefers innovations benefitting adults and young people and does not prefer innovations targeting people with 'drug addiction' and 'obesity'. Class- 2 (34%) prefers innovations targeting 'cancer' patients only and has negative preferences for innovations targeting elderly, and Class-3 (12%) prefers spending on elderly and cancer patients the most. CONCLUSIONS: DCE can help policy-makers incorporate public preferences for health service innovation investment choices into decision making. The findings provide useful information on the public's valuation and acceptability of potential health service innovations. Such information can be used to guide innovation prioritisation decisions by comparing competing innovation options. The approach in this paper makes, these often implicit and opaque decisions, more transparent and explicit.

The effect of improving task representativeness on capturing nurses' risk assessment judgements: a comparison of written case simulations and physical simulations.

BACKGROUND: The validity of studies describing clinicians' judgements based on their responses to paper cases is questionable, because - commonly used - paper case simulations only partly reflect real clinical environments. In this study we test whether paper case simulations evoke similar risk assessment judgements to the more realistic simulated patients used in high fidelity physical simulations. METHODS: 97 nurses (34 experienced nurses and 63 student nurses) made dichotomous assessments of risk of acute deterioration on the same 25 simulated scenarios in both paper case and physical simulation settings. Scenarios were generated from real patient cases. Measures of judgement 'ecology' were derived from the same case records. The relationship between nurses' judgements, actual patient outcomes (i.e. ecological criteria), and patient characteristics were described using the methodology of judgement analysis. Logistic regression models were constructed to calculate Lens Model Equation parameters. Parameters were then compared between the modeled paper-case and physical-simulation judgements. RESULTS: Participants had significantly less achievement (ra) judging physical simulations than when judging paper cases. They used less modelable knowledge (G) with physical simulations than with paper cases, while retaining similar cognitive control and consistency on repeated patients. Respiration rate, the most important cue for predicting patient risk in the ecological model, was weighted most heavily by participants. CONCLUSIONS: To the extent that accuracy in judgement analysis studies is a function of task representativeness, improving task representativeness via high fidelity physical simulations resulted in lower judgement performance in risk assessments amongst nurses when compared to paper case simulations. Lens Model statistics could prove useful when comparing different options for the design of simulations used in clinical judgement analysis. The approach outlined may be of value to those designing and evaluating clinical simulations as part of education and training strategies aimed at improving clinical judgement and reasoning.

Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources.

CONTEXT: Barriers to the use of systematic reviews by policymakers may be overcome by resources that adapt and present the findings in formats more directly tailored to their needs. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify such knowledge-translation resources and evaluations of them. METHODS: Resources were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were based exclusively or primarily on systematic reviews and were aimed at health care policymakers at the national or local level. Resources were identified by screening the websites of health technology assessment agencies and systematic review producers, supplemented by an email survey. Electronic databases and proceedings of the Cochrane Colloquium and HTA International were searched as well for published and unpublished evaluations of knowledge-translation resources. Resources were classified as summaries, overviews, or policy briefs using a previously published classification. FINDINGS: Twenty knowledge-translation resources were identified, of which eleven were classified as summaries, six as overviews, and three as policy briefs. Resources added value to systematic reviews by, for example, evaluating their methodological quality or assessing the reliability of their conclusions or their generalizability to particular settings. The literature search found four published evaluation studies of knowledge-translation resources, and the screening of abstracts and contact with authors found three more unpublished studies. The majority of studies reported on the perceived usefulness of the service, although there were some examples of review-based resources being used to assist actual decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users' needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding.

The effects of clinical experience on nurses' critical event risk assessment judgements in paper based and high fidelity simulated conditions: a comparative judgement analysis.

BACKGROUND: Paper based simulated patients are widely used to analyse nurses' clinical judgements. However, developments in the physical simulation of clinical environments offer exciting, but relatively underexploited, opportunities for exploring nurses' judgements. Critical event risk assessment is an element of acute care practice which lends itself well to simulation and in which more clinical experience is often assumed to lead to better quality judgements. OBJECTIVES: To model nurses' judgements of critical event risk using physical and paper simulation and to examine whether improving fidelity via physical clinical simulation impacts on the apparent benefits of clinical experience on nurses' judgement performance. DESIGN: A comparative clinical judgement analysis. SETTING: A university in Northern England. METHODS: Sixty-three nursing students and 34 experienced nurses made dichotomous risk assessment judgements ("at risk" or "not at risk") in response to 25 paper and physical simulated scenarios. These were randomly generated from a dataset of real patient case records. Clinical outcomes (the judgement criteria) for a 'correct' judgement were derived from the same case records. Logistic regression models were constructed to derive statistics for each nurse representing various measures of judgement performance: achievement (r(a)), consistency (R(s)) and clinical information use (G). These statistics were known as Lens Model statistics (from the psychological theory of Brunswik's Lens Model of judgement). Performance measures for novice and experienced nurses were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences in judgemental achievement (r(a)) between experienced nurses and students were observed in either paper or high fidelity clinical simulations. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the nurses' abilities to correctly match the ways they synthesised clinical information with the optimum synthesis required by the task (policy matching) (G). When faced with "paper patients" experienced nurses exercised more cognitive control/consistency (R(s)) than students (P=0.04). However, this heightened control in experienced nurses was absent when those same nurses made judgements in the higher fidelity clinical simulation environment. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience made no difference to nurses' judgement achievement (accuracy) in either the lower fidelity paper scenarios or the higher fidelity setting of the clinical simulation unit. The significant impact of clinical experience on judgement consistency was negated by the increases in fidelity offered through clinical simulation.

Nurses' risk assessment judgements: a confidence calibration study.

AIM: This paper is a report of a study of the relationship between nurses' clinical experience and calibration of their self-confidence and judgement accuracy for critical event risk assessment judgements. BACKGROUND: Miscalibration (i.e. under-confidence or over-confidence of confidence levels) has an important impact on the quality of nursing care. Despite this, little is known about how nurses' subjective confidence is calibrated with the accuracy of their judgments. METHODS: A sample of 103 nursing students and 34 experienced nurses were exposed to 25 risk assessment vignettes. For each vignette they made dichotomous judgements of whether the patient in each scenario was at risk of a critical event, and assigned confidence ratings (0-100) to their judgement calls. The clinical vignettes and judgement criteria were generated from real patient cases. The methodology of confidence calibration was used to calculate calibration measures and generate calibration curves. Data were collected between March 2007 and January 2008. FINDINGS: Experienced nurses were statistically significantly more confident than students but no more accurate. Whilst students tended towards under-confidence, experienced nurses were over-confident. Experienced nurses were no more calibrated than students. Experienced nurses were no better at discriminating between correct and incorrect judgements than students. These patterns were exacerbated when nurses and students were extremely over-confident or extremely under-confident. CONCLUSION: Nurses were systematically biased towards over/under-confidence in their critical event risk assessment judgements. In particular, experienced nurses were no better calibrated than their student counterparts; with student under-confidence countered by experienced nurses' greater susceptibility to over-confidence.

The effects of time pressure and experience on nurses' risk assessment decisions: a signal detection analysis.

BACKGROUND: Time pressure and, occasionally, suboptimal assessment decisions are features of nursing in acute care. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effect of generic and specialist clinical experience on the ability to detect the need to take action in acute care and the impact of time pressure on nurses' decision-making performance. METHODS: Experienced acute care registered nurses (n = 241) were presented with 50 vignettes of real clinical risk assessments. Each vignette contained seven information cues. In response to these vignettes, nurses had to decide whether to intervene or not. The 26 vignettes were time limited and mixed randomly into the 50 cases. Signal detection analysis was used to establish nurses' performance, personal decision thresholds ([beta]), and their abilities (d') to distinguish a signal of clinical risk from the clinical noise of noncontributory information. RESULTS: Nurses had significantly lower d' and were significantly less likely to indicate intervening under time pressure. For ability-but not threshold-there was a significant interaction of time pressure and years of experience in acute care. With no time pressure, d' increased in line with years of experience. Under time pressure, there was no effect. DISCUSSION: Time pressure reduced nurses' ability to detect the need and the tendency to report intervening. Thus, there were more failures to report appropriate intervention under time pressure, and the positive effects of clinical experience were negated under time pressure. More and larger scale research on the effect on clinical outcomes of time pressured nursing choices is required.

Q methodology in health economics.

The recognition that health economists need to understand the meaning of data if they are to adequately understand research findings which challenge conventional economic theory has led to the growth of qualitative modes of enquiry in health economics. The use of qualitative methods of exploration and description alongside quantitative techniques gives rise to a number of epistemological, ontological and methodological challenges: difficulties in accounting for subjectivity in choices, the need for rigour and transparency in method, and problems of disciplinary acceptability to health economists. Q methodology is introduced as a means of overcoming some of these challenges. We argue that Q offers a means of exploring subjectivity, beliefs and values while retaining the transparency, rigour and mathematical underpinnings of quantitative techniques. The various stages of Q methodological enquiry are outlined alongside potential areas of application in health economics, before discussing the strengths and limitations of the approach. We conclude that Q methodology is a useful addition to economists' methodological armoury and one that merits further consideration and evaluation in the study of health services.

Alternative futures for health economics: implications for nursing management.

As nursing has been subject to successive waves of 'managerialism' there has been a drive on the part of government and elements within the profession to enhance the science base and promote cost-effective health care interventions. This has generated new interest in the 'economics of nursing' as efficiency and 'value for money' are viewed as necessary precondition for the provision of a high quality nursing service. As an academic subject health economics has brought an elegant set of theories to bear on the topic of health and health care. However, mainstream health economics is premised on a series of simplifying assumptions that, if applied uncritically, can induce a range of unintended and adverse consequences. This paper asks how ideas developed in one sphere (health economics) can be become influential in another (nursing management and practice) and it seeks explanations in the theories of Michel Foucault, specifically in his exploration of the reciprocal relationship between power and knowledge. How are our assumptions about what is possible and desirable shaped, how far do mechanisms of surveillance and self-subjugation extend? A range of alternative economic approaches have been developed which challenge many mainstream health economics assumptions. Some of these are better suited to the complex social environment present within health care. Nurses, nurse managers and researchers should question the assumptions of dominant economic models and explore a range of economic frameworks when planning services and evaluating their practice.

Using decision trees to aid decision-making in nursing.

This article discusses judgement and decision-making in nursing. It outlines an approach to analysing clinical problems known as decision analysis. It suggests decision analysis can be a useful technique for nurses to assist them with decision-making in practice.