Background. In the community mental health field, occupational therapy students lack the capacity to prioritize referrals effectively. Objective. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of a clinical decision-training aid on referral prioritization capacity. Design. A double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted using a judgment analysis approach. Setting. Each participant used the World Wide Web to prioritize referral sets at baseline, immediate posttest, and 2-wk follow-up. The intervention group was provided with training after baseline testing; control group was purely given instructions to continue with the task. Participants. One hundred sixty-five students were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 87) or control (n = 81). Intervention. Written and graphical descriptions were given of an expert consensus standard explaining how referral information should be used to prioritize referrals. Measurements. Participants’ prioritization ratings were correlated with the experts’ ratings of the same referrals at each stage of testing, as well as to examine the effect on mean group scores, regression weights, and the lens model indices. Results. At baseline, no differences were found between control and intervention on rating capacity or demographic characteristics. Comparison of the difference in mean correlation baseline scores of the control and intervention group compared with immediate posttest showed a statistically significant result that was maintained at 2-wk follow-up. The effect size was classified as large. At immediate posttest and follow-up, the intervention group improved rating capacity, whereas the control group’s capacity remained poor. The results of this study indicate that the decision-training aid has a positive effect on referral prioritization capacity. Conclusions. This freely available, Web-based decision-training aid will be a valuable adjunct to the education of these novice health professionals internationally.
GargAXAdhikariNKJMcDonaldH. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–38.
2.
HammondKR. Probabilistic functionalism and the clinical method. Psychol Rev. 1955;62:255–62.
3.
BecksteadJWStampKD. Understanding how nurse practitioners estimate patients’ risk for coronary heart disease: a judgment analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2007;60(4):436–6.
4.
ThompsonCAFosterAColeIDowdingDW. Using social judgement theory to model nurses’ use of clinical information in critical care education. Nurs Educ Today. 2005;25(1):68–77.
5.
CookseyRW. Judgement Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Academic Press;1996.
6.
BalzerWKDohertyMEO’ConnorR. Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychol Bull. 1989;106(3):410–33.
7.
BalzerWSulskyL. Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1992;53:35–54.
8.
HammondKStewartTBrehmerBSteinmannD. Social judgement theory: applications in policy formation. In: KaplanMSchwartzS. eds. Human Judgement and Decision Processes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1975. p 271–312.
9.
HurschCJHammondKRHurschJL. Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies. Psychol Rev. 1964;71:42–60.
10.
TuckerLR. A suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch. Psychol Rev. 1964;71:528–30.
11.
WigtonRSPosesRMCollinsMCebulRD. Teaching old dogs new tricks: using cognitive feedback to improve physicians’ diagnostic judgements on simulated cases. Acad Med. 1990;65(9):5–6.
12.
AdelmanLMumpowerJL. The analysis of expert judgment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1979;15:191–204.
13.
DalgleishLI. Decision making in child abuse cases: applications of social judgment theory and signal detection theory. In: BrehmerBJoyceCRB., eds. Human Judgment: The SJT View. Amsterdam: North Holland Elsevier;1988.
14.
HarriesPAGilhoolyK. Identifying occupational therapists’ referral priorities in community health. Occup Ther Int. 2003;10(2):150–64.
15.
HarriesPAGilhoolyKJ. Occupational therapists’ self-insight into their referral prioritisation policies for clients with mental health needs. Aust Occup Ther J. 2010;57(6):417–24.
16.
HarriesPAGilhoolyK. Generic and specialist occupational therapy casework in community mental health. Br J Occup Ther. 2003;66(3):101–9.
17.
WeissDShanteauJHarriesP. People who judge people. J Behav Decis Mak. 2006;19:441–54.
18.
HarriesP. Progress report: use of the Web tool for training the prioritisation skills for community mental health team referrals. Ment Health Occup Ther. 2007;12(2):69–70.
19.
HardingKTaylorNShaw-StuartL. Triaging patients for allied health services: a systematic review of the literature. Br J Occup Ther. 2009;72(4):153–62.
20.
HarriesPA. A study to identify, in the field of community mental health, the factors influencing occupational therapists’ decision making as to whether or not to accept a referral. Br J Occup Ther. 1998;61(4):156.
21.
HarriesP. Editorial: the development of a Web-based tool for training referral prioritization skills. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2006;13(6):150–64.
22.
HarriesPAHarriesC. Studying clinical reasoning, part 2: applying social judgement theory. Br J Occup Ther. 2001;64(6):285–92.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
27.
Department of Health.New ways of working for psychiatrists: enhancing effective, person-centered services through new ways of working in multidisciplinary teams. London: College of Occupational Therapists; 2005.
28.
PosesRMCebulRDWigtonRS. You can lead a horse to water-improving physicians’ knowledge of probabilities may not affect their decisions. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):65–75.
29.
HarriesPGilhoolyK. Training novices to make expert, occupationally focused, community mental health referral decisions. Br J Occup Ther. 2011;74(2):58–65.
30.
Department of Health. The Mental Health Act. London: HMSO; 2007.
