IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v10y2020i4p94-d450827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing Healthcare Decision-Making Process: Findings from Orthopaedic Field

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Schettini & Gabriele Palozzi & Antonio Chirico, 2020. "Enhancing Healthcare Decision-Making Process: Findings from Orthopaedic Field," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:94-:d:450827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/4/94/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/4/94/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Locock, Louise & Dopson, Sue & Chambers, David & Gabbay, John, 2001. "Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 745-757, September.
    2. Jennifer Robinson & Marta Sinclair & Jutta Tobias & Ellen Choi, 2017. "More Dynamic Than You Think: Hidden Aspects of Decision-Making," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-29, July.
    3. Usha C. V. Haley & Stephen A. Stumpf, 1989. "Cognitive Trails In Strategic Decision‐Making: Linking Theories Of Personalities And Cognitions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 477-497, September.
    4. Matteo Cristofaro, 2017. "Reducing biases of decision-making processes in complex organizations," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 270-291, March.
    5. Baron, Robert A., 1998. "Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when enterpreneurs think differently than other people," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 275-294, July.
    6. Wai Ming To & Billy T. W. Yu & Peter K. C. Lee, 2018. "How Quality Management System Components Lead to Improvement in Service Organizations: A System Practitioner Perspective," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Abdulrahman Ghoneim & Bonnie Yu & Herenia Lawrence & Michael Glogauer & Ketan Shankardass & Carlos Quiñonez, 2020. "What influences the clinical decision-making of dentists? A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Elizabeth Goldsby & Michael Goldsby & Christopher B. Neck & Christopher P. Neck, 2020. "Under Pressure: Time Management, Self-Leadership, and the Nurse Manager," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matteo Cristofaro & Maria José Sousa & José Carlos Sanchéz-Garcia & Aron Larsson, 2021. "Contextualized Behavior for Improving Managerial and Entrepreneurial Decision-Making," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matteo Cristofaro & Pier Luigi Giardino, 2020. "Core Self-Evaluations, Self-Leadership, and the Self-Serving Bias in Managerial Decision Making: A Laboratory Experiment," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Mark Simon & Susan M. Houghton, 2002. "The Relationship among Biases, Misperceptions, and the Introduction of Pioneering Products: Examining Differences in Venture Decision Contexts," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 27(2), pages 105-124, April.
    3. Arno Nuijten & Nick Benschop & Antoinette Rijsenbilt & Kristinka Wilmink, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Critical Decisions Facing SME Entrepreneurs: An External Accountants’ Perspective," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Adam Sulich & Letycja Sołoducho-Pelc & Marcos Ferasso, 2021. "Management Styles and Decision-Making: Pro-Ecological Strategy Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Diana Hechavarría & Charles Matthews & Paul Reynolds, 2016. "Does start-up financing influence start-up speed? Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 137-167, January.
    6. Grichnik, Dietmar & Smeja, Alexander & Welpe, Isabell, 2010. "The importance of being emotional: How do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 15-29, October.
    7. Zellweger, Thomas & Sieger, Philipp & Halter, Frank, 2011. "Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 521-536, September.
    8. Matteo Cristofaro & Maria José Sousa & José Carlos Sanchéz-Garcia & Aron Larsson, 2021. "Contextualized Behavior for Improving Managerial and Entrepreneurial Decision-Making," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, February.
    9. Das, Willy & Das, Satyasiba, 2018. "Role of Heuristic Principles On Crowd-Funder's Investment Decision Making," 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change (Dubrovnik, 2018), in: 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disrupt, pages 443-452, Governance Research and Development Centre (CIRU), Zagreb.
    10. Ariel BenYishay & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2014. "Social Learning and Communication," NBER Working Papers 20139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Eden S. Blair, 2010. "What You Think Is Not What You Think: Unconsciousness and Entrepreneurial Behavior," Chapters, in: Angela A. Stanton & Mellani Day & Isabell M. Welpe (ed.), Neuroeconomics and the Firm, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Ronald K. Mitchell & Lowell W. Busenitz & Barbara Bird & Connie Marie Gaglio & Jeffery S. McMullen & Eric A. Morse & J. Brock Smith, 2007. "The Central Question in Entrepreneurial Cognition Research 2007," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(1), pages 1-27, January.
    13. Cucchiarini, Veronica & Scicchitano, Sergio & Viale, Riccardo, 2024. "The Entrepreneur's Cognitive and Behavioral Journey: Understanding Heuristics and Bias under Risk and Uncertainty," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1390, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    14. Ahmad Firdause Md Fadzil & Puspa Liza Ghazali & Mohd Rafi Yaacob & Mohd Nazri Muhayiddin, 2018. "The Relation of Entrepreneur Cognition and Personality: The Determinant Factors of E-Commerce Entrepreneurship Involvement in Malaysia," International Journal of Asian Social Science, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 8(12), pages 1228-1235, December.
    15. Francisco Liñán & Yi-Wen Chen, 2006. "Testing the Entrepreneurial Intention Model on a Two-Country Sample," Working Papers 0607, Departament Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, revised Jul 2006.
    16. Guercini, Simone & Milanesi, Matilde, 2020. "Heuristics in international business: A systematic literature review and directions for future research," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(4).
    17. Erik Lundmark & Anna Krzeminska & Dean A. Shepherd, 2019. "Images of Entrepreneurship: Exploring Root Metaphors and Expanding Upon Them," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(1), pages 138-170, January.
    18. Tim R. Holcomb & R. Duane Ireland & R. Michael Holmes Jr. & Michael A. Hitt, 2009. "Architecture of Entrepreneurial Learning: Exploring the Link among Heuristics, Knowledge, and Action," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 167-192, January.
    19. Dimo Dimov, 2007. "Beyond the Single-Person, Single-Insight Attribution in Understanding Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(5), pages 713-731, September.
    20. Martínez-Zarzuelo, Angélica & Rodríguez-Mantilla, Jesús Miguel & Fernández-Díaz, María José, 2022. "Improvements in climate and satisfaction after implementing a quality management system in education," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:94-:d:450827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.