Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 17;37(1):10.7196/SAJCC.2021.v37i1.473.
doi: 10.7196/SAJCC.2021.v37i1.473. eCollection 2021.

Identifying ICU admission decision patterns in a '20-questions game' approach using network analysis

Affiliations

Identifying ICU admission decision patterns in a '20-questions game' approach using network analysis

P D Gopalan et al. South Afr J Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: The complex intensive care unit (ICU) admission decision process has numerous non-linear relationships involving multiple factors. To better describe and analyse this process, exploration of novel techniques to clearly delineate the importance and interrelationships of factors is warranted. Network analysis (NA), based on graph theory, attempts to identify patterns of connections within a network and may be useful in this regard.

Objectives: To identify patterns of ICU decision-making pertaining to patients referred for admission to ICU and to identify key factors, their distribution, connection and relative importance. The secondary aim was to compare subgroups as per decision outcomes and case labels.

Methods: NA was performed using Gephi software package as a secondary analysis on a dataset generated from a previous study on ICU admission decision-making process using a 20-questions game approach. The data were standardised and coded up to a quaternary level for this analysis.

Results: The coding process generated 31 nodes and 964 edges. Regardless of the measure used (centrality, prestige, authority and hubs), properties of the acute illness, progress of the acute illness and properties of comorbidities emerged consistently as among the most important factors and their relative rankings differed. Using different measures allowed important factors to emerge differentially. The six subgroups that emerged from the modularity measure bore little resemblance to traditional factor subgroups. Differences were noted in the subgroup comparisons of decision outcomes and case prognoses.

Conclusion: The use of NA with its various measures has facilitated a more comprehensive exploration of the ICU admission decision, allowing us to reflect on the process. Further studies with larger datasets are needed to elucidate the exact role of NA in decision-making processes.

Contributions of the study: We performed a novel analysis of a complex decision-making process that allowed for comparison with traditional analytic methods. It allowed for identification of key factors, their distribution, connection and relative importance. This may subsequently allow for reflection on difficult decision-making processes, thereby leading to more appropriate outcomes. Moreover, this may lead to new considerations in developing decision support systems such as the formulation of pro-forma data-capture tools (e.g. referral forms). Further, the way factors have been traditionally subgrouped may need to be reconsidered, with different subgroups being partitioned to better reflect their connection. This study offers a good basis for more advanced future studies in this area to use a new variety of analytical tools.

Keywords: 20-questions game; ICU admission; ICU decision-making; critical care; intensive care unit; network analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Network analysis graph of all cases. Node size and label size are as per authority measures and nodes are partitioned as per modularity class into different colours.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Network analysis graph of admitted cases (A) and refused cases (B). Node size and label size are as per authority measures and nodes are partitioned as per modularity class into different colours.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Network analysis graph of case A (A) and case B (B).

References

    1. Evans JS, Over DE, Manktelow KI. Reasoning, decision-making and rationality. Cognition. 1993;49(44198):165–187. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90039-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, et al. Guidebook 2002. USA: Department of Energy; 2002. Guidebook to decision-making methods.http://emiweb.inel.gov/Nissmg/Guidebook_2002.pdf (accessed 25 September 2017)
    1. Introduction to decision-making [Internet]. Virtual Salt; 2012. http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm (accssed 25 Septmeber 2017).
    1. Hansson SO. Decision-making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci. 1996;26(3):369–386. doi: 10.1177/004839319602600304. - DOI
    1. Starcke K, Brand M. Decision-making under stress: A selective review. Neurosci and Biobehavio Rev. 2012;36(4):1228–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.003. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources