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

Autor: Lemmens SMP; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, Maastricht, 6229 ER, The Netherlands. stephanie.lemmens@maastrichtuniversity.nl., Lopes van Balen VA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands., Röselaers YCM; Limburg Obstetric Consortium, ROS Robuust, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Scheepers HCJ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands., Spaanderman MEA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC health services research [BMC Health Serv Res] 2022 Feb 17; Vol. 22 (1), pp. 218. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Feb 17.
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-07484-7
Abstrakt: 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.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje