Enhancing Healthcare Decision-Making Process: Findings from Orthopaedic Field

Irene Schettini, Gabriele Palozzi and Antonio Chirico
Additional contact information
Irene Schettini: Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
Gabriele Palozzi: Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
Antonio Chirico: Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy

Administrative Sciences, 2020, vol. 10, issue 4, 1-20

Abstract: In the healthcare field, the decision-making process is part of the broad spectrum of “clinical reasoning”, which is recognised as the whole process by which a physician decides about patients’ treatments and cares. Several clinicians’ intrinsic variables lead to this decisional path. Little is known about the inference of these variables in triggering biases in decisions about the post-discharge period in the surgical field. Accordingly, this research aims to understand if and how cognitive biases can affect orthopaedists in decision-making regarding the follow-up after knee and hip arthroplasty. To achieve this goal, an interview-based explorative case study was run. Three key-decisional orthopaedic surgeons were interviewed through a quality control tool aimed at monitoring the causes and effects of cognitive distortions. Coherently with the literature, eight biases come to light. All the interviewees agree on the presence of four common biases in orthopaedic surgery (Affect heuristic, Anchoring, Halo effect, Saliency). The other biases (Groupthink, Availability, Overconfidence, Confirmation), instead, depending on specific physicians’ intrinsic variables; namely: (i) working experience; (ii) working context. This finding contributes to the debate about the application of cognitive tools as leverage for improving the quality of clinical decision-making process and, indirectly, enhancing better healthcare outcomes.

Keywords: clinical decision-making process; clinical reasoning; cognitive biases; orthopaedics; follow-up decision; healthcare decision (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: L M M0 M1 M10 M11 M12 M14 M15 M16 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/4/94/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/4/94/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:94-:d:450827

Access Statistics for this article

Administrative Sciences is currently edited by Ms. Nancy Ma

More articles in Administrative Sciences from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().