Search

To evaluate the effects of "ego bias" on physicians' prognostic judgments. Ego bias is defined as systematic overestimation of the prognosis of one's own patients compared with the expected outcome of a population of similar patients.A prospective study of an inception cohort of critically ill patients followed until death or discharge from the hospital.Consecutive patients admitted to either an ICU or an intermediate ICU at a teaching hospital during January and February 1987, excluding patients admitted after coronary artery bypass grafting, for elective dialysis, or transferred to the intermediate ICU from another critical care unit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: House officers' and critical care attending physicians' assessments of the likelihood of inhospital survival for each patient, and their assessments of the overall survival rate of ICU and intermediate ICU patients were compared with each other and with actual survival rates.The attending physicians' predictions for individual patients were significantly lower than their judgments of the overall survival rate, 79.8% vs. 88.0%, p = .0067, suggesting the presence of a "reverse ego bias." The house officers' predictions for individual patients were significantly higher than their judgments of the overall survival rate, 73.5% vs. 68.9%, p = .018, suggesting the presence of ego bias. The magnitude and directions of these differences varied significantly among the attending physicians (F = 4.3, degrees of freedom = 3, p = .0062 by repeated-measures analysis of variance) and the house officers (F = 6.3, degrees of freedom = 5, p = .0001).The critical care attending physicians exhibited reverse ego bias that was mainly a function of their optimism about the overall survival rate for critically ill patients. The house officers exhibited ego bias that was mainly a function of their pessimism about the overall survival rate for critically ill patients.

We reviewed the clinical characteristics and resource utilization of 391 medical (M) and 315 surgical (S) ICU patients. In general, MICU patients had more physiologic derangement, as determined by the admission, maximal, and average acute physiology scores (APS). SICU patients had more frequent therapeutic interventions as measured by admission, maximal, and average therapeutic intervention scoring system values. Notably, 40% of MICU and 30% of SICU patients never received any active interventions and were admitted strictly for monitoring purposes. Patients on admission with APS less than or equal to 10 had markedly shorter ICU stays, with almost 50% less treatment than patients with APS over 10. Fifty-six percent of patients with APS less than or equal to 10 did not require any active intervention. In contrast, 83% of patients with APS greater than 10 had considerable intensive interventions. These patients required mechanical ventilation, invasive monitoring, and vasoactive drugs more than twice as often as patients with lower APS scores. Consideration should be given, therefore, to the organization of ICUs according to the patient's severity of illness.

Demographic characteristics, severity of illness, resource utilization, and outcome were compared for 351 medical ICU (MICU) and 329 ward patients of a large, urban, tertiary care hospital. Patients were similar in age, race, sex, and insurance coverage. Both MICU and ward patients had similar health status distributions 3 to 6 months before hospitalization. Severity of illness, as measured by the Acute Physiology Score was significantly higher in the MICU patients, although there was considerable overlap in the distributions. Resource utilization, as measured by the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS), was also significantly higher in the MICU; again, the distributions of the two groups overlapped, although mostly for low values of TISS. Of the MICU sample, 28% to 30% never required active therapeutic interventions; 11% of the ward sample received active treatment. The significant overlap between MICU and ward distributions of severity of illness and resource utilization has implications for admission and discharge policies.