Admission Control Bias and Path-Dependent Feedback Under Diagnosis Uncertainty

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0194

References

  • Alizamir S, De Véricourt F, Sun P (2013) Diagnostic accuracy under congestion. Management Sci. 59(1):157–171.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Allen AO (2014) Probability, Statistics, and Queueing Theory (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  • Argon NT, Ziya S (2009) Priority assignment under imperfect information on customer type identities. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 11(4):674–693.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bar-Hillel M (1980) The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychol. 44(3):211–233.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bearden JN, Murphy RO, Rapoport A (2008) Decision biases in revenue management: Some behavioral evidence. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 10(4):625–636.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Benjamin DJ (2019) Errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgment biases. Bernheim BD, DellaVigna S, Laibson D, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 vol. 2 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 69–186.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bolton GE, Katok E (2008) Learning by doing in the newsvendor problem: A laboratory investigation of the role of experience and feedback. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 10(3):519–538.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Chen LM, Kennedy EH, Hofer TP (2013) Use of health IT for higher-value critical care. New England J. Medicine 368(7):594–597.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Croskerry P (2000) The feedback sanction. Academic Emergency Medicine 7(11):1232–1238.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Croskerry P (2003) The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine 78(8):775–780.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Croskerry P, Cosby KS (2009) Patient Safety in Emergency Medicine (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
  • Croson R, Donohue K (2006) Behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect and the observed value of inventory information. Management Sci. 52(3):323–336.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dai T, Singh S (2020) Conspicuous by its absence: Diagnostic expert testing under uncertainty. Marketing Sci. 39(3):540–563.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • DeCroix G, Long X, Tong J (2021) How service quality variability hurts revenue when customers learn: Implications for dynamic personalized pricing. Oper. Res. 69(3):683–708.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • DeVita MA, Bellomo R, Hillman K, Kellum J, Rotondi A, Teres D, Auerbach A, et al. (2006) Findings of the first consensus conference on medical emergency teams. Critical Care Medicine 34(9):2463–2478.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Edwards W (1968) Conservatism in human information processing. Kleinmuntz B, ed. Formal Representation of Human Judgment (Wiley, New York), 17–52.Google Scholar
  • Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM (1978) Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psych. Rev. 85(5):395–416.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Elstein AS (2009) Thinking about diagnostic thinking: a 30-year perspective. Adv. Health Sci. Ed. Theory Practice 14(1):7–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Engelbrecht-Wiggans R, Katok E (2008) Regret and feedback information in first-price sealed-bid auctions. Management Sci. 54(4):808–819.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Epley N, Gilovich T (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psych. Sci. 17(4):311–318.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Feiler DC, Tong JD, Larrick RP (2013) Biased judgment in censored environments. Management Sci. 59(3):573–591.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gupta R, Siemens I, Campbell S (2019) The use of outcome feedback by emergency medicine physicians: Results of a physician survey. World J. Emergency Medicine 10(1):14–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hayes M (2019) Uncertainty in decision-making: Critical care, imperfect data. Accessed July 27, 2023, https://corporatelearning.hms.harvard.edu/industry-insights/uncertainty-decision-making-critical-care-imperfect-data.Google Scholar
  • Hendriks A (2012) SoPHIE—Software platform for human interaction experiments. Working paper, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.Google Scholar
  • Hogarth RM, Lejarraga T, Soyer E (2015) The two settings of kind and wicked learning environments. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 24(5):379–385.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • James FR, Power N, Laha S (2018) Decision-making in intensive care medicine—A review. J. Intensive Care Soc. 19(3):247–258.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kagan E, Leider S, Ozge S (2021) Dynamic decision making in operations management. Working paper.Google Scholar
  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psych. Rev. 80(4):237–251.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kim SH, Tong J, Peden C (2020) Admission control biases in hospital unit capacity management: How occupancy information hurdles and decision noise impact utilization. Management Sci. 66(11):5151–5170.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kremer M, de Véricourt F (2023) Mismanaging diagnostic accuracy under congestion. Oper. Res. 71(3):895–916.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kremer M, Moritz B, Siemsen E (2011) Demand forecasting behavior: System neglect and change detection. Management Sci. 57(10):1827–1843.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Larrick RP, Wu G (2007) Claiming a large slice of a small pie: Asymmetric disconfirmation in negotiation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 93(2):212–233.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lurie NH, Swaminathan JM (2009) Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 108(2):315–329.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • March JG (1996) Learning to be risk averse. Psych. Rev. 103(2):309–319.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Massey C, Wu G (2005) Detecting regime shifts: The causes of under-and overreaction. Management Sci. 51(6):932–947.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Miller BL (1969) A queueing reward system with several customer classes. Management Sci. 16(3):234–245.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mussweiler T, Strack F, Pfeiffer T (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26(9):1142–1150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Örmeci EL, Burnetas AN, Emmons H (2002) Dynamic policies of admission to a two-class system based on customer offers. IIE Trans. 34(9):813–822.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Quattrone GA (1982) Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 42(4):593.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rees S, Griffiths F, Bassford C, Brooke M, Fritz Z, Huang H, Rees K, Turner J, Slowther AM (2020) The experiences of healthcare professionals, patients, and families of the process of referral and admission to intensive care: A systematic literature review. J. Intensive Care Soc. 21(1):79–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psych. Bull. 119(1):3–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Song H, Tucker AL, Graue R, Moravick S, Yang JJ (2020) Capacity pooling in hospitals: The hidden consequences of off-service placement. Management Sci. 66(9):3825–3842.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Staats BR, Kc DS, Gino F (2018) Maintaining beliefs in the face of negative news: The moderating role of experience. Management Sci. 64(2):804–824.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Stanovich KE, West RF (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. J. Experiment. Psych. General 127(2):161–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sterman JD (1989) Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Sci. 35(3):321–339.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Sun Z, Argon NT, Ziya S (2018) Patient triage and prioritization under austere conditions. Management Sci. 64(10):4471–4489.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tong J, Feiler D, Larrick R (2018) A behavioral remedy for the censorship bias. Production Oper. Management 27(4):624–643.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wulff DU, Mergenthaler-Canseco M, Hertwig R (2018) A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description-experience gap. Psych. Bull. 144(2):140–176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.