Table 4

Precision and rationale of thresholds on the Predicted Risk Of New Event (PRONE) score for three indicative interventions

InterventionTolerance for missing practitioners who will recur in short-termTolerance for netting practitioners who will not recur in short-termRationaleImplications for threshold on PRONE scoreNominal thresholds on PRONE scoreSensitivity/specificity (%)
Advise doctor of future complaint riskLowHighPrefer lower false negative rate (quality-of-care considerations); false positives not problematic (cheap to implement, minimally confronting)High sensitivity desirable, specificity level subordinate≥394/19
Exhortation or compulsion to undertake CMEModerateModeratePrefer lower false negative rate (quality-of- care) and lower false positive rate (absorbs resources, may waste practitioners’ time)Balance between sensitivity and specificity≥569/58
Refer to regulator for further actionHighLowMust minimise false positive rate (natural justice); false negative rate undesirable (quality-of-care) but trumpedHigh specificity essential, sensitivity level subordinate≥1213/99
  • CME, continuing medical education.