Clinicians' recognition of 10 different types of distal radial fractures

Emergency department registered nurses overestimate their disaster competency: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Major incidents continue to pose a threat to health care systems by overwhelming them with a sudden surge of patients. A major factor impacting a hospital's surge capacity is the skills, abilities, and knowledge of emergency department (ED) registered nurses (RN). The level of disaster nursing competency they possess affects patient safety and outcome. ED RNs' ability to accurately assess their competency and knowledge is imperative for mitigating the effect of major incidents. ED RN's perception of overall disaster preparedness has not been thoroughly addressed. The aim of this study was to assess emergency department registered nurses' self-perceived disaster preparedness.

METHOD

The study was a cross-sectional study per the STROBE checklist. A self-assessment questionnaire based on the results of a study identifying specific disaster nursing competencies for ED RNs was distributed to all ED RNs at six participating hospitals between January 10th to February 19th of 2019. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to assess competency.

RESULTS

ED RNs' disaster preparedness according to the Total Disaster Competency mean was low. Furthermore, the results indicate that ED RNs' significantly overestimate their disaster nursing competency when compared to the Total Disaster Competency mean. Additionally, this study identified factors such as experience and education were positively associated with disaster preparedness and self-assessment ability.

CONCLUSION

ED RNs' overestimate their disaster preparedness. However, ED RNs with experience and education may be better prepared. ED RNs with formal disaster education appeared to have better insight concerning their preparedness. Clinical experience, advanced levels of education, and training were positively associated with preparedness. Overestimating disaster competencies may negatively impact patient outcomes during a major incident.

Interrater Reliability for the Basic Categories of the Ao/Asif's System as a Frame of Reference for Classifying Distal Radial Fractures

This study is about agreement on the assignment into the three basic classes or categories (A, B, C) of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation's (AO/ASIF) classification system for distal radial fractures. A random sample of 124 distal radial fractures was classified by two experienced observers. Their agreement was calculated according to Cohen's kappa statistic. To investigate the possible bases for disagreement, all conflicting X-ray assessments were discussed in a consensus meeting. It appeared that the kappa value was .65 (good agreement) before the meeting; kappa rose to .86 (excellent agreement) after the consensus meeting. It appeared that the undisplaced fractures were a major source of disagreement. Further, the presence of articular involvement was an important issue. It was frequently noted that one observer classified the fracture as extraarticular (basic Class A), while the other observer chose classification as an intra-articular fracture (basic Class C) or vice versa. This phenomenon has been called the A/C reversal shift. It is concluded that radiological innovations might enhance agreement on articular involvement, and a separate category for undisplaced fractures should be defined in the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) system. However, agreement on relevant distinctive features and discussion of conflicting assessments may also be important in achieving excellent agreement.

Flawed Self-Assessment

Research from numerous corners of psychological inquiry suggests that self-assessments of skill and character are often flawed in substantive and systematic ways. We review empirical findings on the imperfect nature of self-assessment and discuss implications for three real-world domains: health, education, and the workplace.

In general, people's self-views hold only a tenuous to modest relationship with their actual behavior and performance. The correlation between self-ratings of skill and actual performance in many domains is moderate to meager—indeed, at times, other people's predictions of a person's outcomes prove more accurate than that person's self-predictions. In addition, people overrate themselves. On average, people say that they are “above average” in skill (a conclusion that defies statistical possibility), overestimate the likelihood that they will engage in desirable behaviors and achieve favorable outcomes, furnish overly optimistic estimates of when they will complete future projects, and reach judgments with too much confidence. Several psychological processes conspire to produce flawed self-assessments.

Research focusing on health echoes these findings. People are unrealistically optimistic about their own health risks compared with those of other people. They also overestimate how distinctive their opinions and preferences (e.g., discomfort with alcohol) are among their peers—a misperception that can have a deleterious impact on their health. Unable to anticipate how they would respond to emotion-laden situations, they mispredict the preferences of patients when asked to step in and make treatment decisions for them. Guided by mistaken but seemingly plausible theories of health and disease, people misdiagnose themselves—a phenomenon that can have severe consequences for their health and longevity.

Similarly, research in education finds that students' assessments of their performance tend to agree only moderately with those of their teachers and mentors. Students seem largely unable to assess how well or poorly they have comprehended material they have just read. They also tend to be overconfident in newly learned skills, at times because the common educational practice of massed training appears to promote rapid acquisition of skill—as well as self-confidence—but not necessarily the retention of skill. Several interventions, however, can be introduced to prompt students to evaluate their skill and learning more accurately.

In the workplace, flawed self-assessments arise all the way up the corporate ladder. Employees tend to overestimate their skill, making it difficult to give meaningful feedback. CEOs also display overconfidence in their judgments, particularly when stepping into new markets or novel projects—for example, proposing acquisitions that hurt, rather then help, the price of their company's stock. We discuss several interventions aimed at circumventing the consequences of such flawed assessments; these include training people to routinely make cognitive repairs correcting for biased self-assessments and requiring people to justify their decisions in front of their peers.

The act of self-assessment is an intrinsically difficult task, and we enumerate several obstacles that prevent people from reaching truthful self-impressions. We also propose that researchers and practitioners should recognize self-assessment as a coherent and unified area of study spanning many subdisciplines of psychology and beyond. Finally, we suggest that policymakers and other people who makes real-world assessments should be wary of self-assessments of skill, expertise, and knowledge, and should consider ways of repairing self-assessments that may be flawed.

Do Orthopaedic Surgeons Acknowledge Uncertainty?

BACKGROUND

Much of the decision-making in orthopaedics rests on uncertain evidence. Uncertainty is therefore part of our normal daily practice, and yet physician uncertainty regarding treatment could diminish patients' health. It is not known if physician uncertainty is a function of the evidence alone or if other factors are involved. With added experience, uncertainty could be expected to diminish, but perhaps more influential are things like physician confidence, belief in the veracity of what is published, and even one's religious beliefs. In addition, it is plausible that the kind of practice a physician works in can affect the experience of uncertainty. Practicing physicians may not be immediately aware of these effects on how uncertainty is experienced in their clinical decision-making.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Does uncertainty and overconfidence bias decrease with years of practice? (2) What sociodemographic factors are independently associated with less recognition of uncertainty, in particular belief in God or other deity or deities, and how is atheism associated with recognition of uncertainty? (3) Do confidence bias (confidence that one's skill is greater than it actually is), degree of trust in the orthopaedic evidence, and degree of statistical sophistication correlate independently with recognition of uncertainty?

METHODS

We created a survey to establish an overall recognition of uncertainty score (four questions), trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (four questions), confidence bias (three questions), and statistical understanding (six questions). Seven hundred six members of the Science of Variation Group, a collaboration that aims to study variation in the definition and treatment of human illness, were approached to complete our survey. This group represents mainly orthopaedic surgeons specializing in trauma or hand and wrist surgery, practicing in Europe and North America, of whom the majority is involved in teaching. Approximately half of the group has more than 10 years of experience. Two hundred forty-two (34%) members completed the survey. We found no differences between responders and nonresponders. Each survey item measured its own trait better than any of the other traits. Recognition of uncertainty (0.70) and confidence bias (0.75) had relatively high Cronbach alpha levels, meaning that the questions making up these traits are closely related and probably measure the same construct. This was lower for statistical understanding (0.48) and trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (0.37). Subsequently, combining each trait's individual questions, we calculated a 0 to 10 score for each trait. The mean recognition of uncertainty score was 3.2 ± 1.4.

RESULTS

Recognition of uncertainty in daily practice did not vary by years in practice (0-5 years, 3.2 ± 1.3; 6-10 years, 2.9 ± 1.3; 11-20 years, 3.2 ± 1.4; 21-30 years, 3.3 ± 1.6 years; p = 0.51), but overconfidence bias did correlate with years in practice (0-5 years, 6.2 ± 1.4; 6-10 years, 7.1 ± 1.3; 11-20 years, 7.4 ± 1.4; 21-30 years, 7.1 ± 1.2 years; p < 0.001). Accounting for a potential interaction of variables using multivariable analysis, less recognition of uncertainty was independently but weakly associated with working in a multispecialty group compared with academic practice (β regression coefficient, -0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0 to -0.055; partial R(2), 0.021; p = 0.029), belief in God or any other deity/deities (β, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.11; partial R(2), 0.026; p = 0.015), greater confidence bias (β, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.14; partial R(2), 0.084; p < 0.001), and greater trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (β, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.058; partial R(2), 0.040; p = 0.002). Better statistical understanding was independently, and more strongly, associated with greater recognition of uncertainty (β, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.17-0.34; partial R(2), 0.13; p < 0.001). Our full model accounted for 29% of the variability in recognition of uncertainty (adjusted R(2), 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively low levels of uncertainty among orthopaedic surgeons and confidence bias seem inconsistent with the paucity of definitive evidence. If patients want to be informed of the areas of uncertainty and surgeon-to-surgeon variation relevant to their care, it seems possible that a low recognition of uncertainty and surgeon confidence bias might hinder adequately informing patients, informed decisions, and consent. Moreover, limited recognition of uncertainty is associated with modifiable factors such as confidence bias, trust in orthopaedic evidence base, and statistical understanding. Perhaps improved statistical teaching in residency, journal clubs to improve the critique of evidence and awareness of bias, and acknowledgment of knowledge gaps at courses and conferences might create awareness about existing uncertainties.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1, prognostic study.

Self-enhancement influences medial frontal cortex alpha power to social rejection feedback

Although previous research has demonstrated that individuals are motivated to self-enhance, the neurocognitive mechanisms and temporal dynamics of self-enhancement are poorly understood. The current research examined whether self-enhancing motivations affect the perceptual processing of social feedback. Participants who varied in self-enhancement motivations received accept and reject feedback while EEG was recorded. Following this task, we measured perceptions of feedback by asking participants to estimate the number of times they were rejected. Source localization and time-frequency analyses revealed that alpha power in the medial frontal cortex (MFC) completely mediated the relationship between self-enhancement motivations and rejection estimates. Specifically, greater self-enhancement motivations predicted decreased MFC alpha power to reject compared to accept feedback, which predicted decreased rejection estimates. These findings suggest that self-enhancement motivations decrease perception of social rejection by influencing how the MFC processes social feedback.

Exploring the hand hygiene competence of student nurses: a case of flawed self assessment

Hand hygiene remains the single most effective measure to prevent hospital acquired infection and yet poor compliance is reported repeatedly. Nurses represent the largest labour group and perform the greatest amount of direct patient care in the contemporary National Health Service. They receive their initial hand hygiene training in the pre-registration curriculum within a competence framework based on knowledge, skills and attitudes. The pre-eminent training method is one that delivers behavioural competence, making the tacit assumption that compliance will follow. In this study a mixed methods approach demonstrated that students overestimated their knowledge and skills, found it difficult to give an objective account of their performance, and reported an improbable level of compliance. The reasons why people can be self serving in their judgements may be due to information processing errors, exacerbated by the model of education and training. Flawed self assessments may present major barriers to improved performance if students view their compliance as better than it actually is. Conceptualising hand hygiene as a taxonomy of learning and introducing the cognitive strategies of reflection and self assessment would better enable students to problem solve, seek out new information, draw on past experience and gain greater and deeper understanding of the complex topic of hand hygiene behaviour.