Naturalistic Decision Making and Organizations: Reviewing Pragmatic Science

Gore, Julie; Banks, Adrian P.; Millward, Lynne J.; Kyriakidou, Olivia

doi:10.1177/0170840606065701

Cited by 61 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…information, scenario detail) leading to this decision; ○ Influence of organisational factors (e.g. protocols, norms) underlying decision-making; (Bertsimas, Farias, and Trichakis 2012;Pauker and Kassirer 1975), framing effects upon decision-making (Croskerry 2002;Fackler et al 2009;Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982), experience and expertise (Flin, Youngson, and Yule 2007;Klein 1993;Patel, Kaufman, and Arocha 2002), and organisational and group norms for decision-making (Eisenberg 1979;Gore et al 2006). Finally, the themes and data from the qualitative analysis were summarised and synthesised into a single table, which aimed to provide an initial conceptual set (illustrated by examples) of factors influencing how clinicians make risk trade-offs in ICU.…”

Section: Interview Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impossible decision? An investigation of risk trade-offs in the intensive care unit

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

b centre for Perioperative medicine and critical care research, imperial college Healthcare nHs Trust, London, UK ABSTRACTIn the intensive care unit (ICU), clinicians must often make risk trade-offs on patient care. For example, on deciding whether to discharge a patient before they have fully recovered in order to create a bed for another, sicker, patient. When misjudged, these decisions can negatively influence patient outcomes: yet it can be difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to evaluate with certainty the safest course of action. Using a vignette-based interview methodology, a naturalistic decision-making approach was utilised to study this phenomena. The decision preferences of ICU clinicians (n = 24) for two common risk trade-off scenarios were investigated. Qualitative analysis revealed the sample of clinicians to reach different, and sometimes oppositional, decision preferences. These practice variations emerged from differing analyses of risk, how decisions were 'framed' (e.g. philosophies on care), past experiences, and perceptions of group and organisational norms. Implications for patient safety and clinical decision-making are discussed.Practitioner Summary: Physicians managing ICUs have to make rapid decisions with incomplete information and suboptimal resources. A qualitative vignette-based interview study examined how such decisions are made. We found physicians used a heterogeneous mixture of risk assessments, factual knowledge and prior experience to make judgements, which leads to potential for inconsistent decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Interview Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Organisational and social psychology research shows that decision-making on risk is often influenced by social norms for how risk is understood and responded to (Bettenhausen and Murnighan 1985;Gore et al 2006;Trevino 1986). This appeared relevant for both scenarios.…”

Section: Organisational and Group Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impossible decision? An investigation of risk trade-offs in the intensive care unit

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, these factors include: ill-structured problems; uncertain dynamic settings; Shifting and competing goals; action/feedback loops; time pressure; high stakes; multiple decision makers; and organizational goals and norms; and experienced decision-makers [20][21][22]. The worst cases for decision makers are the ones with maximum values on the eight features mentioned above.…”

Section: Naturalistic Decision Making (Ndm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Naturalistic Decision-Making in Natural Disasters: An Overview

Bouafia¹,

R²

2017

J Geogr Nat Disast

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paper Design Disaster managementDisasters may come suddenly and without previous warning. Some disasters happen due to an interaction of human and technology, AbstractDecision-making can take place in many settings: daily life problems, financial issues, health care matters or in emergencies and situations that require quick and high-risk decisions to be made. In natural or man-made disasters, the immediate decisions are crucial for effective mitigation and management. Thus, the Decision-makers during such situations must process a large amount of unreliable and incomplete information under sharp time restrictions and critical judgments are frequently made under pressure and high stake. The purpose of this paper is to present the decisionmaking process in real-life settings focusing on the recognition-primed model (RPD) in an attempt to understand how decisions are made in emergencies and natural disasters. Literature review was conducted and it was found that the dynamic behaviour of disasters requests the decision-makers to allocate resources and attention to collaboration and coordination. Decision-making, therefore, is a sensitive task of all management actors especially emergencies and disasters managers and the effective response to such calamities depends on how effective and timely are the decisions that have been made.

show abstract

“…fields such as nuclear power, aviation, healthcare (Gore, Banks et al, 2006) and intelligence analysis (Hutchins, Pirolli et al, 2004). It was used primarily to identify perceptual and cognitive needs for aiding decision making, and to investigate incidents by reconstructing and understanding how operators made sense of the emergent situations (Klein, 2008).…”

Section: History Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has its beginnings in the rejection of Subjective Expected Utility theory where people are thought to make decisions by analysing all possible outcomes of a situation in a very rationalistic manner and selecting the most desirable option (Gore, Banks et al, 2006). Early researchers in NDM, including Gary Klein, found that in real situations people generated a very limited number of possible courses of action, sometimes only one, and then compared them to the constraints of the situation for a reason to reject the course of action (Klein, 2008).…”

Section: 1 Naturalistic Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human factors methods to design safer mobile mining equipment

Cooke¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Naturalistic Decision Making and Organizations: Reviewing Pragmatic Science

Cited by 61 publications

References 51 publications

Impossible decision? An investigation of risk trade-offs in the intensive care unit

Impossible decision? An investigation of risk trade-offs in the intensive care unit

Naturalistic Decision-Making in Natural Disasters: An Overview

Human factors methods to design safer mobile mining equipment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About