Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: When is a team of experts an expert team?

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 308-313

  Kee, F ^a   Owen, T ^a   Leathern, R ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT SYSTEM; HEALTH STATUS; HOSPITAL SECTOR; SURVIVAL;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; GROUP DYNAMICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURVIVAL RATE; TEAMWORK;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 33947669301     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2005.044917     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Expert Advisory Group Report on Cancer. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services: a report by the Expert Advisory Group on cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. London: Department of Health, 1995.
2. National Health Service Executive. Guidance on commissioning cancer services: improving outcomes in lung cancer. London: NHSE, 1998.
3. Detsky AS, Stricker SC, Mulley AG, et al. Prognosis, survival and the expenditure of hospital resources for patients in an intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 1981;305:667-72.
4. Muers MF, Shevlin P, Brown J, on behalf of the participating members of the Thoracic Group of the Yorkshire Cancer Organisation. Thorax 1996;51:894-902.
5. Christakis NA, Lamont EB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2000;320:469-73.
6. Yates JF. Scoring rules for forecasts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1981, Cognitive Science Technical Report Series #14).
7. Arkes HR, Dawson NV, Speroff T, et al. The covariance decomposition of the probability score and its use in evaluating prognostic estimates. Med Decis Making 1995;15:120-31.
8. Laird N, Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990;6:5-30.
9. Poses RM, Bekes C, Winkler RL, et al. Are two (inexperienced) heads better than one (experienced) head? Averaging house officers' prognostic judgments for critically ill patients. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1874-8.
10. Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. http://www.qub.ac.uk/nicr (accessed 1 Feb 2007).
11. Howard R, Mair Z, Borrill C, et al. Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. Br J Cancer 2003;89:15-22.
12. Gregor A, Thomson CS, Brewster DH, et al. Management and survival of patients with lung cancer in Scotland diagnosed in 1995: results of a national population based study. Thorax 2001;56:212-17.
13. Blazeby JM, Wilson K, Metcalfe C, et al. Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol 2006;17:457-60.
14. Wachter R, Luce J, Hearst N, et al. Decisions about resuscitation: inequities among patients with different disease but similar prognoses. Ann Intern Med 1989;111:525-32.
15. Kee F, Owen T, Leathern R. Decision making in a multidisciplinary cancer team: does team discussion result in better quality decisions? Med Decis Making 2004;24:602-13.
16. Dolan J, Bordley D, Mushlin A. An evaluation of clinician's subjective probability estimates. Med Decis Making 1986;6:216-23.
17. Poses R, Cebul RD, Center RM. Evaluating physicians' probabilistic judgments Med Decis Making 1988;8:233-40.
18. Jones P, Roelofsma HMP. The potential for social, contextual and group biases in team decision making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics 2002;43:1129-52.
19. Fischer GW. When oracles fail: a comparison of four procedures for aggregating subjective probability forecasts. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1981;28:96-110.
20. Myers DG, Lamm H. The group polarisation phenomenon. Psychol Bull 1976;83:602-27.
21. Tierney WM, Fitzgerald J, McHenry R, et al. Physicians estimates of the probability of myocardial infarction in emergency room patients with chest pain Med Decis Making 1986;6:12-17.
22. McNutt RA, Selker HP. How did the acute ischaemic heart disease predictive instrument reduce coronary care unit admissions? Med Decis Making 1988;8:90-4.
23. Christensen C, Larson J, Abbott A, et al. Decision making of clinical teams: communication patterns and diagnostic error. Med Decis Making 2000;20:45-50.
24. Stasser G, Taylor LA, Hanna C. Information sampling in structured discussion among three and six person groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989;57:67-78.
25. Stasser G, Titus W. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985;48:1467-78.
26. Parks C, Kerr N. Twenty five years of social decision scheme theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1999;80:1-2.
27. Hinsz V. Group decision making with responses of a quantitative nature: the theory of social decision schemes for quantities. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1999;80:28-49.
28. Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ. Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.
29. Patel V. Individual to collaborative cognition: a paradigm shift? Artif Intell Med 1998;12:93-6.