We are constantly hunting for newer and better sources of information. This leads to a perpetual generation of newer lab tests, different hemodynamic gizmos, and fresh decision tools. Some of these pan out. Most don’t.

Why are these new sources of information generally disappointing? The answer is simple: we’re already doing pretty well.

In order for a new source of information to help us, it needs to represent a substantive improvement over what we already have.

We don’t need more information (that’s just noise) – we need better information.

This principle was illustrated by the above article comparing various decision instruments versus clinician judgement.​

Decision instruments generally perform well as a stand-alone tests. However, when compared to the judgement of treating physicians, decision instruments seldom add anything.

This shouldn’t be surprising.

Decision tools are terrific at processing a few bits of information, but they ignore lots of other information.

Read More