PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

The risk matrix approach: a helpful tool weighing probability and impact when deciding on preventive and diagnostic interventions

BMC Health Services Research, ISSN: 1472-6963, Vol: 22, Issue: 1, Page: 218
2022
  • 8
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 87
    Captures
  • 1
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Citations
    8
  • Captures
    87
  • Mentions
    1
    • News Mentions
      1
      • 1

Most Recent News

SIMULAÇÃO DE MONTE CARLO APLICADA À PROJETOS DE RECERTIFICAÇÃO DE 5 ANOS EM EQUIPAMENTOS DE SUPERFÃCIE PARA PERFURAÇÃO DE POÇOS DE PETRÓLEO OFFSHORE /MONTE CARLO SIMULATION APPLIED TO 5-YEAR RECERTIFICATION PROJECTS IN SURFACE EQUIPMENT FOR DRILL

1 Introdução Inseridos no contexto do mercado de exploração e produção de petróleo e gás no Brasil, mais especificamente no segmento de perfuração de poços,

Article Description

Background: Clinical guidelines are developed to lower risks, mostly viewed upon as probability. However, in daily practice, risk is perceived as the combination of probability and the impact of desired and adverse events. This combination of probability and impact can be visualized in a risk matrix. We evaluated the effect of interventions and diagnostic thresholds on modeled risk, by using the risk matrix approach (RMA) in a clinical guideline development process, and investigated which additional factors affected choices. Methods: To improve care outcomes, we developed new guidelines in which care professionals had to decide upon novel interventions and diagnostic thresholds. A risk matrix showed the probability and impact of an intervention, together with the corresponding risk category. First, professionals’ opinion on required performance characteristics on risk were evaluated by a qualitative online survey. Second, qualitative assessment of possible additional factors affecting final decisions, that followed from group discussion and guideline development were evaluated. Results: Upfront, professionals opinioned that non-invasive interventions should decrease the general population risk, whereas invasive interventions should decrease the risk in high-risk groups. Nonetheless, when making guidelines, interventions were introduced without reaching the predefined threshold of desired risk reduction. Professionals weighed other aspects besides risk reduction, as financial aspects and practical consequences for daily practice in this guideline-making process. Conclusion: Professionals are willing to change policies at much lower level of anticipated effectiveness than defined upfront. Although objectively presented data structured group discussions, decisions in guideline development are affected by several other factors than risk reduction alone.

Bibliographic Details

Stéphanie M. P. Lemmens; Veronica A. Lopes van Balen; Yvonne C. M. Röselaers; Hubertina C. J. Scheepers; Marc E. A. Spaanderman

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Medicine

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know