Software �Decision Making� as an Aid in Planning Enteral Nutrition in Nephrology

2015 ◽  
pp. 113-115
Author(s):  
G. Quintaliani ◽  
G. Antonini ◽  
L. Demegni ◽  
E. Santini ◽  
A. Orecchini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Enteral Nutrition

scholarly journals Physicians' perceptions about managing enteral nutrition and the implementation of tools to assist in nutritional decision-making in a paediatric intensive care unit

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clémence Moullet ◽  
Elodie Schmutz ◽  
Jocelyne Laure Depeyre ◽  
Marie-Hélène Perez ◽  
Jacques Cotting ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Paediatric Intensive Care

scholarly journals To feed, or not to feed? Evaluating enteral nutrition practices in surgical neonates

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra Anderson ◽  
Manisha Bhatia ◽  
JoAnna Hunter-Squires ◽  
Peter Saula ◽  
Brian Gray
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Enteral Feeding ◽  
Pediatric Surgery ◽  
Feeding Practices ◽  
Abdominal Distension ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Factors ◽  
Nutrition Practices ◽  
Decision Making Processes

Background: Early enteral feeding initiation following surgical procedures in neonates has demonstrated several benefits. In high income countries, where parenteral nutrition is readily available, enteral feeding initiation is often delayed. This study seeks to examine clinical factors and decision-making processes that guide nutrition practices in surgical neonates in the United States (US) and Kenya.   Methods: A REDCap survey was developed and distributed to pediatric surgery attendings and fellows at Riley and Peyton Manning Children’s Hospitals in Indiana (US) and Shoe4Africa Children’s and AIC Kijabe Hospitals in Kenya. Nine responses were collected during the initial two-week long pilot, then analyzed using REDCap and SPSS 25.   Results: Responses were collected from eight pediatric surgery attendings and a fellow practicing in Indianapolis, IN. The three most highly ranked clinical factors important for initiation of enteral feeds were stability of the patient, nasogastric or orogastric output color, and gastric output volume. Factors most highly ranked for advancement of feeds included frequency and volume of emesis and abdominal distension. These factors were similarly ranked for foregut and hindgut procedures. Protocols for pyloric stenosis (n=6) include initiation of enteral nutrition within 24-48 hours.  Four of nine respondents felt that surgeons at their institution are not aggressive enough in feeding surgical neonates. The primary perceived barrier to achieving full enteral nutrition was patient gut dysmotility (n=8). All respondents felt that they were similarly (n=4) or more (n=5) proactive in feeding surgical neonates compared to their peers.   Conclusions and Impact: Feeding practices in surgical neonates are dependent on individual clinician decision-making processes and patient factors. Once the data from the Kenyan surgeons is collected, comparisons between practice patterns will be analyzed. Real-world enteral feeding practices will be evaluated in an adjunct observational study, which we hope will inform protocols with earlier enteral feeding initiation in the future.  

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

The primacy of conscious decision making – ERRATUM

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision

The primacy of conscious decision making – RETRACTION

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document