The impact of cognitive biases, mental models, and mindsets on leadership and change in the health system.

Understanding how cognitive biases, mental models, and mindsets impact leadership in health systems is essential. This article supports the notion of cognitive biases as flawed thinking or cognitive traps which negatively influence leadership. Mental models that do not fit with current evidence limit our ability to comprehend and respond to system issues. Resulting mindsets affect cognition, behaviour, and decision-making. Metacognition is critical. The wicked problems in today's complex health system require leaders and everyone involved to elevate their personal, organizational, and disciplinary perspectives to a systems level. Three examples of mental models/mindsets are reviewed. They do not change simply because we wish or will them to. The first step is being aware of what they are and how they impact our thinking and decision-making. Some tips for managing these traps are offered as examples of how to challenge our leadership approach in the health system.

The challenge of cognitive science for medical diagnosis.

The historical tendency to view medicine as both an art and a science may have contributed to a disinclination among clinicians towards cognitive science. In particular, this has had an impact on the approach towards the diagnostic process which is a barometer of clinical decision-making behaviour and is increasingly seen as a yardstick of clinician calibration and performance. The process itself is more complicated and complex than was previously imagined, with multiple variables that are difficult to predict, are interactive, and show nonlinearity. They appear to characterise a complex adaptive system. Many aspects of the diagnostic process, including the psychophysics of signal detection and discrimination, ergonomics, probability theory, decision analysis, factor analysis, causal analysis and more recent developments in judgement and decision-making (JDM), especially including the domain of heuristics and cognitive and affective biases, appear fundamental to a good understanding of it. A preliminary analysis of factors such as manifestness of illness and others that may impede clinicians' awareness and understanding of these issues is proposed here. It seems essential that medical trainees be explicitly and systematically exposed to specific areas of cognitive science during the undergraduate curriculum, and learn to incorporate them into clinical reasoning and decision-making. Importantly, this understanding is needed for the development of cognitive bias mitigation and improved calibration of JDM in clinical practice.

The mental demands of leadership in complex adaptive systems.

After a decade of calls for healthcare transformation, there is a convergence of themes in our general orienting models. The core metaphor of health system as machine (with closed boundaries, linear functions, and controlled predictable outputs) has given way to health as ecosystem (with open boundaries, non-linear functions, multiple interdependencies, and no single locus of control over outcomes). Current developmental psychology theory suggests that people construct their reality, and interact with their world, based on the epistemology (or "action-logic" or "mindset") of their stage of development. Through this lens, the skills for leading large-scale change in our increasingly complex world require significant cognitive and interpersonal development. The concept of vertical development may be an underemphasized aspect of system change. This article will discuss a new set of leadership skills and frameworks that emerge in the nexus of complex adaptive systems and adult development theory.

State of the Evidence for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Care: The Evolution and Current Methodology of the Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) Program.

Background: Emergency medical services (EMS) leaders and clinicians need to incorporate evidence into safe and effective clinical practice. Access to high-quality evidence, and the time to synthesize it, can be barriers to evidence-based practice. The Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, repository of critically appraised evidence specific to EMS. This paper describes the evolution and current methodology of the PEP program. Methods|design: The purpose of PEP is to identify, catalog and critically appraise relevant studies. Following regular systematic searches, two trained appraisers critically appraise included studies and assign a score on three-point level of evidence (LOE) and direction of evidence (DOE) scales. Each clinical intervention is plotted on a 3 × 3 (LOE × DOE) evidence matrix, which provides a summary recommendation. Discussion: The PEP program is a unique knowledge translation tool, specific to EMS. End-users can easily identify which clinical interventions are, or are not, supported by evidence.

Cognitive bias in health leaders.

Cognitive bias can be a serious impediment to rational decision-making by health leaders. We use a hypothetical case study to introduce some basic concepts of bias with examples of mitigation strategies. We argue that the effect of biases should be considered when making every significant administrative decision.

Paramedic Recognition of Sepsis in the Prehospital Setting: A Prospective Observational Study.

Background. Patients with sepsis benefit from early diagnosis and treatment. Accurate paramedic recognition of sepsis is important to initiate care promptly for patients who arrive by Emergency Medical Services. Methods. Prospective observational study of adult patients (age ≥ 16 years) transported by paramedics to the emergency department (ED) of a Canadian tertiary hospital. Paramedic identification of sepsis was assessed using a novel prehospital sepsis screening tool developed by the study team and compared to blind, independent documentation of ED diagnoses by attending emergency physicians (EPs). Specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Results. Overall, 629 patients were included in the analysis. Sepsis was identified by paramedics in 170 (27.0%) patients and by EPs in 71 (11.3%) patients. Sensitivity of paramedic sepsis identification compared to EP diagnosis was 73.2% (95% CI 61.4-83.0), while specificity was 78.8% (95% CI 75.2-82.2). The accuracy of paramedic identification of sepsis was 78.2% (492/629, 52 true positive, 440 true negative). Positive and negative predictive values were 30.6% (95% CI 23.8-38.1) and 95.9% (95% CI 93.6-97.5), respectively. Conclusion. Using a novel prehospital sepsis screening tool, paramedic recognition of sepsis had greater specificity than sensitivity with reasonable accuracy.

End-tidal capnometry during emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized trial was undertaken to evaluate the utility of adding end-tidal capnometry (ETC) to pulse oximetry (PO) in patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The patients were randomized to monitoring with or without ETC in addition to the current standard of care. Primary endpoints included respiratory adverse events, with secondary endpoints of level of sedation, hypotension, other PSA-related adverse events and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 986 patients, 501 were randomized to usual care and 485 to additional ETC monitoring. In this series, 48% of the patients were female, with a mean age of 46 years. Orthopedic manipulations (71%), cardioversion (12%) and abscess incision and drainage (12%) were the most common procedures, and propofol and fentanyl were the sedative/analgesic combination used for most patients. There was no difference in patients experiencing de-saturation (SaO2<90%) between the two groups; however, patients in the ETC group were more likely to require airway repositioning (12.9% vs. 9.3%, P=0.003). Hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg or <85 mmHg if baseline <100 mmHg) was observed in 16 (3.3%) patients in the ETC group and 7 (1.4%) in the control group (P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ETC does not appear to change any clinically significant outcomes. We found an increased incidence of the use of airway repositioning maneuvers and hypotension in cases where ETC was used. We do not believe that ETC should be recommended as a standard of care for the monitoring of patients undergoing PSA.

Deciding about fast and slow decisions.

Two reports in this issue address the important topic of clinical decision making. Dual process theory has emerged as the dominant model for understanding the complex processes that underlie human decision making. This theory distinguishes between the reflexive, autonomous processes that characterize intuitive decision making and the deliberate reasoning of an analytical approach. In this commentary, the authors address the polarization of viewpoints that has developed around the relative merits of the two systems. Although intuitive processes are typically fast and analytical processes slow, speed alone does not distinguish them. In any event, the majority of decisions in clinical medicine are not dependent on very short response times. What does appear relevant to diagnostic ease and accuracy is the degree to which the symptoms of the disease being diagnosed are characteristic ones. There are also concerns around some methodological issues related to research design in this area of enquiry. Reductionist approaches that attempt to isolate dependent variables may create such artificial experimental conditions that both external and ecological validity are sacrificed. Clinical decision making is a complex process with many independent (and interdependent) variables that need to be separated out in a discrete fashion and then reflected on in real time to preserve the fidelity of clinical practice. With these caveats in mind, the authors believe that research in this area should promote a better understanding of clinical practice and teaching by focusing less on the deficiencies of intuitive and analytical systems and more on their adaptive strengths.

Air versus ground transport of the major trauma patient: a natural experiment.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To compare the outcomes of adult trauma patients transported to a level I trauma center by helicopter vs. ground ambulance. 2) To determine whether using a unique "natural experiment" design to obtain the ground comparison group will reduce potential confounders. METHODS: Outcomes in adult trauma patients transported to a tertiary care trauma center by air were compared with outcomes in a group of patients who were accepted by the online medical control physician for air transport, but whose air missions were aborted for aviation reasons (weather, maintenance, out on a mission); these patients were subsequently transported by ground ambulance instead. Outcomes were also analyzed for a third ground control group composed of all other adult trauma patients transported by ground during this time period. Data were collected by retrospective database review of trauma patients transferred between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 2003. Outcomes were measured by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) analysis. Z and W scores were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven missions were flown by LifeFlight during the study period vs. 57 in the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group. The mean ages, gender distributions, mechanisms of injury, and Injury Severity Scores (ISSs) were similar in the two groups. Per 100 patients transported, 5.61 more lives were saved in the air group vs. the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group (Z = 3.37). As per TRISS analysis, this is relative to the expected mortality seen with a similar group in the Major Trauma Outcomes Study (MTOS). The Z score for the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group was 0.4. The 1,195 patients in the third all-other ground control group had a higher mean age, lower mean ISS, and worse outcomes according to TRISS analysis (W = -2.02). CONCLUSIONS: This unique natural experiment led to better matched air vs. ground cohorts for comparison. As per TRISS analysis, air transport of the adult major trauma patient is associated with significantly improved survival as compared with ground transport.

The Canadian prehospital evidence-based protocols project: knowledge translation in emergency medical services care.

OBJECTIVES: The principles of evidence-based medicine are applicable to all areas and professionals in health care. The care provided by paramedics in the prehospital setting is no exception. The Prehospital Evidence-based Protocols Project Online (PEP) is a repository of appraised research evidence that is applicable to interventions performed in the prehospital setting and is openly available online. This article describes the history, current status, and potential future of the project. METHODS: The primary objective of the PEP is to catalog and grade emergency medical services (EMS) studies with a level of evidence (LOE). Subsequently, each prehospital intervention is assigned a class of recommendation (COR) based on all the appraised articles on that intervention, in an effort to organize the evidence so it may be put into practice efficiently. An LOE is assigned to each article by the section editor, based on the study rigor and applicability to EMS. The section editor committee consists of EMS physicians and paramedics from across Canada, and two from Ireland and a paramedic coordinator. The evidence evaluation cycle is continuous; as the section editors send back appraisals, the coordinator updates the database and sends out another article for review. RESULTS: The database currently has 182 individual interventions organized under 103 protocols, with 933 citations. CONCLUSIONS: This project directly meets recent recommendations to improve EMS by using evidence to support interventions and incorporating it into protocols. Organizing and grading the evidence allows medical directors and paramedics to incorporate research findings into their daily practice. As such, this project demonstrates how knowledge translation can be conducted in EMS.

Out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure ventilation versus usual care in acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) in appropriately selected patients with acute respiratory failure has been shown to reduce the need for tracheal intubation in hospital. Despite several case series, the effectiveness of out-of-hospital CPAP has not been rigorously studied. We performed a prospective, randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial to determine whether patients in severe respiratory distress treated with CPAP in the out-of-hospital setting have lower overall tracheal intubation rates than those treated with usual care. METHODS: Out-of-hospital patients in severe respiratory distress, with failing respiratory efforts, were eligible for the study. The study was approved under exception to informed consent guidelines. Patients were randomized to receive either usual care, including conventional medications plus oxygen by facemask, bag-valve-mask ventilation, or tracheal intubation, or conventional medications plus out-of-hospital CPAP. The primary outcome was need for tracheal intubation during the out-of-hospital/hospital episode of care. Mortality and length of stay were secondary outcomes of interest. RESULTS: In total, 71 patients were enrolled into the study, with 1 patient in each group lost to follow-up after refusing full consent. There were no important differences in baseline physiologic parameters, out-of-hospital scene times, or emergency department diagnosis between groups. In the usual care group, 17 of 34 (50%) patients were intubated versus 7 of 35 (20%) in the CPAP group (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.73; adjusted OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.7; number needed to treat 3; 95% CI 2 to 12). Mortality was 12 of 34 (35.3%) in the usual care versus 5 of 35 (14.3%) in the CPAP group (unadjusted OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: Paramedics can be trained to use CPAP for patients in severe respiratory failure. There was an absolute reduction in tracheal intubation rate of 30% and an absolute reduction in mortality of 21% in appropriately selected out-of-hospital patients who received CPAP instead of usual care. Larger, multicenter studies are recommended to confirm this observed benefit seen in this relatively small trial.