Lecture 2 Information processing and intuitive decision making theory Carl Thompson Decision making theory Descriptive approaches: how people actually make decisions Normative approaches: how people ought to make decisions NB. Most approaches have elements of both Information processing Assumptions Human reasoning as the interface between short (stimuli) and long-term (semantic/factual knowledge & experiential (episodic knowledge) memory Human reasoning is rational Rationality is bounded Information processing: the process Elstein et al. 1978 Cue acquisition Carnevali et al 1984 H° generation Cue interpretation H° evaluation Exposure to pre-encounter data Entry to the data search field and shaping data gathering Coalescing cues into chunks Activating possible H° H° directed search of the data field Testing H° Dx he could not take the sleeping tablets as he could not swallow…. the DN said that they might have to put up a syringe driver for the night if he was not settling and could not take anything orally. ….. he had a couple of dressings on his bottom and the dressings were intact. The DN decided to leave them and not to move him around too much as he had not slept much that night….. ……she told her that it would not be long until he died…… his breathing would get shallower, occasionally it would seem as though he would not breathe again…..it showed that he was nearer to dying…… the DN said that the Marie Curie nurses could work for up to 27 hours and she thought that it would be better if they came at night …..she would return in the afternoon to reassess him Information cues Signs and symptoms Optimal judgement Test results Nurses’ Judgements Patient preferences Etc. Brunswik’s lens model Social judgement approaches to modelling cue use 23.00 25.00 Individual Subject Utilities 27.00 20 29.00 30.00 10 31.00 32.00 0 33.00 35.00 Utility -10 40.00 42.00 -20 43.00 normal glasgow coma score equivocal abnormal Importance Utility(s.e.) Factor 4.59 SYSTOLIC - 3.4298(9.3211) -2.9035(9.3211) - Summary of judgement policy for one clinician faced with the Dx of shock in critical care. normal equivocal -.5263(8.9352) systolic BP abnormal 26.80 PULSE 18.5965(9.3211) ---- -18.404(9.3211) ---- -.1930(8.9352) pulse normal equivocal abnormal 13.13 RESPS -5.0702(9.3211) resps - -6.5274(8.9598) - 11.5976(8.9598) -- normal equivocal Utilities Importance Internal consistency abnormal 14.73 O2 -12.070(9.3211) oxygen sats --- -- 8.2632(9.3211) 3.8070(8.9352) - normal equivocal abnormal 21.64 URINE 11.6393(8.9598) --- 6.5965(9.3211) -18.236(8.9598) ---- urine output normal equivocal abnormal GCS 19.11 -7.5702(9.3211) -9.4035(9.3211) 16.9737(8.9352) -- -- ---- glasgow coma score normal equivocal abnormal 53.5702(6.5013) CONSTANT Pearson's R = .838 Significance = .0000 Kendall's tau = .570 Significance = .0003 Other health information: smoker? Mobility? Medication?…etc Compliance? History: how and when ulcer started; current treatment; pain… etc Background information Leg exam: oedema, temperature; ankle and calf circumference… General medical condition: diabetic? RA; anaemic?… etc Doppler ABPI Ulcer: size, odour, slough, exudates? Investigations: urine, FBC, ESR, urea and electrolytes, blood glucose, swab (if appropriate) general condition: well? Pulse, BP, weight ARTICLES DAILY VISITS PHYSIOLOGY PATIENT INFORMATION PATIENT REJECTION OF EXPERTISE COLLEAGUE’S ‘EXPERIMENTS’ COST ROLE CONFLICT, GP WISHES REJECTION OF EXPERTISE CNS NEED FOR VISIBILITY IN DECISION SHARED DECISION MAKING VALUES SEEING IS BELIEVING AND EXPERIMENTATION WOUND FORMULARY COST DOWN TO WHAT I’VE USED OVER THE YEARS Problems with info processing Role of H° Over emphasising positive findings Excessive data collection Intuition and expertise Understanding without a rationale (Benner & Tanner 1987 p2) A perception of possibilities, meanings and relationships by way of insight (Gerrity 1987 p63) Knowledge of a fact or truth, as a whole; immediate possession of knowledge; and knowledge independent of the linear reasoning process (Rew and Barron 1987 p60) Immediate knowing of something without the conscious use of reason (Schrader and Fischer 1987 p45) [A] process whereby the nurse knows something about a patient that cannot be verbalised, that is verbalised with difficulty or for which the source of knowledge cannot be determined (Young 1987 p52) Intuition Type of knowledge vs mode of thought Lack of visibility Dubious morality? Reflective ‘paradox’ and ?black box Accurate sometimes (hindsight?) Lack of power Novice - expert Dreyfus’ and Benner Novice Advanced beginners Competent Proficient Expert performance Whole situation Orientation Decision Situation components Perception action Level of organisation Lower … … Higher Sub process Perception Action Orientation Decision Stage Perceives the elements of the situation Acts on those elements Recognises Makes decisions whole situations and plans to attain goals in the situation Novice Analytical Analytical Rely on others Rely on others Advanced beginner Intuitive Analytical Rely on others Rely on others Competent Intuitive Intuitive Analytical Analytical Proficient Intuitive Intuitive Intuitive Analytical Expert Intuitive Intuitive Intuitive Intuitive ‘the rules’ Realise that expertise is acquired step-by-step Avoid trying to think like an expert (intuitively) Practice intensively using the rules and logic that are available *NB the proponents’ discipline (sociology/naturalistic research) does not demand empirical testing so caution advised Points of contact and divergence Communicability Simplification Context specificity applicability
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz