Search

Background: Apparent overconfidence and underconfidence in clinicians making clinical judgements could be a feature of evaluative research designs that fail to accurately represent clinical environments. Objectives: To test the effect of improved realism of clinical judgement tasks on confidence calibration performance of nurses and student nurses. Design: A comparative confidence calibration analysis. Settings: The study was conducted in a large university of Northern England. Methods: Ninety-seven participants rated their confidence - using a scale that ranged from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (totally confident) on dichotomous clinical judgements of critical event risk. The judgements were in response to 25 paper-based and 25 higher fidelity scenarios using a computerised patient simulator and clinical equipment. Scenarios, and judgement criteria of 'correctness', were generated from real patient cases. Using a series of calibration measures (calibration, resolution and over/underconfidence), participants' confidence was calibrated against the proportion of correct judgements. The calibration measures generated by the paper-based and high fidelity clinical simulation conditions were compared. Results: Participants made significantly less accurate clinical judgements of risk in the high fidelity clinical simulations compared to the paper simulations (P = 0.0002). They were significantly less confident in high fidelity clinical simulations than paper simulations (P = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference of over/underconfidence for participants between the two simulated settings (P = 0.06). Participants were no better calibrated in the high fidelity clinical simulations than paper simulations, P = 0.85. Likewise, participants had no better ability of discriminating correct judgements from incorrect judgements as measured by the resolution statistic in high fidelity clinical simulations than paper simulations, P = 0.76. Conclusions: Improving the realism of simulated judgement tasks led to reduced confidence and judgement accuracy in participants but did not alter confidence calibration. These findings suggest that judgemental miscalibration of confidence in nurses may be a systematic cognitive bias and that simply making scenarios more realistic may not be a sufficient condition for correction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Venous leg ulcer management in the UK varies significantly. Judgements made by nurses contribute to this variability and it is often assumed that specialist nurses make better judgements than non-specialist nurses. This paper compares the judgements of community tissue viability specialist nurses and community generalist nurses; specifically, the ways they use clinical information and their levels of accuracy. Objectives To compare specialist and non-specialist UK community nurses’ clinical information use when managing venous leg ulceration and their levels of accuracy when making diagnoses and judging the need for treatment. Design Judgement analysis. Setting UK community and primary care nursing services. Participants 18 community generalist nurses working in district (home) nursing teams and general practitioner services and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses. Methods Data were collected in 2011 and 2012. 18 community generalist nurses and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses made diagnostic and treatment judgements on 110 clinical scenarios and indicated their confidence in each of their judgements. Scenarios were generated from real patient cases and presented online using text and photographs. An expert panel made judgements, and reached consensus on the same scenarios. These judgements were used as a standard against which to compare the participants. Logistic regression models and correlational statistics were used to generate various indices of judgement “performance”: accuracy, consistency, confidence calibration and information use. Differences between groups of nurses with different levels of characteristics linked to expertise were explored using analysis of variance. Results Specialist nurses had similar cue usage to the generalist nurses but were more accurate when making diagnostic and treatment judgements. Conclusion It is not obvious why the tissue viability specialist nurses were more accurate. One possible reason might be the greater opportunities for ‘deliberate practice’ afforded to specialists. However, restricting aspects of practice only to specialist nurses is likely to hinder the judgement performance of generalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]