Decision Making in the Democracy-based Medicine Era: The Consensus Conference Process

2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Greco ◽  
Marialuisa Azzolini ◽  
Giacomo Monti
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Based Medicine

scholarly journals Applying evidence-based medicine in general practice: a video-stimulated interview study on workplace-based observation

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisanne S. Welink ◽  
Kaatje Van Roy ◽  
Roger A. M. J. Damoiseaux ◽  
Hilde A. Suijker ◽  
Peter Pype ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Stimulated Recall ◽  
Previous Discussion ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Stimulated Recall Interviews ◽  
Gp Training

Abstract Background Evidence-based medicine (EBM) in general practice involves applying a complex combination of best-available evidence, the patient’s preferences and the general practitioner’s (GP) clinical expertise in decision-making. GPs and GP trainees learn how to apply EBM informally by observing each other’s consultations, as well as through more deliberative forms of workplace-based learning. This study aims to gain insight into workplace-based EBM learning by investigating the extent to which GP supervisors and trainees recognise each other’s EBM behaviour through observation, and by identifying aspects that influence their recognition. Methods We conducted a qualitative multicentre study based on video-stimulated recall interviews (VSI) of paired GP supervisors and GP trainees affiliated with GP training institutes in Belgium and the Netherlands. The GP pairs (n = 22) were shown fragments of their own and their partner’s consultations and were asked to elucidate their own EBM considerations and the ones they recognised in their partner’s actions. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo. By comparing pairs who recognised each other’s considerations well with those who did not, we developed a model describing the aspects that influence the observer’s recognition of an actor’s EBM behaviour. Results Overall, there was moderate similarity between an actor’s EBM behaviour and the observer’s recognition of it. Aspects that negatively influence recognition are often observer-related. Observers tend to be judgemental, give unsolicited comments on how they would act themselves and are more concerned with the trainee-supervisor relationship than objective observation. There was less recognition when actors used implicit reasoning, such as mindlines (internalised, collectively reinforced tacit guidelines). Pair-related aspects also played a role: previous discussion of a specific topic or EBM decision-making generally enhanced recognition. Consultation-specific aspects played only a marginal role. Conclusions GP trainees and supervisors do not fully recognise EBM behaviour through observing each other’s consultations. To improve recognition of EBM behaviour and thus benefit from informal observational learning, observers need to be aware of automatic judgements that they make. Creating explicit learning moments in which EBM decision-making is discussed, can improve shared knowledge and can also be useful to unveil tacit knowledge derived from mindlines.

Evidence-Based Decision-Making (Part 1): Origins and Evolution in the Health Sciences

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Bradt
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

AbstractEvidence is defined as data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based. In the early 1990s, medical clinicians pioneered evidence-based decision-making. The discipline emerged as the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine required the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available, external clinical evidence from systematic research and the patient's unique values and circumstances. In this context, evidence acquired a hierarchy of strength based upon the method of data acquisition.Subsequently, evidence-based decision-making expanded throughout the allied health field. In public health, and particularly for populations in crisis, three major data-gathering tools now dominate: (1) rapid health assessments; (2) population based surveys; and (3) disease surveillance. Unfortunately, the strength of evidence obtained by these tools is not easily measured by the grading scales of evidence-based medicine. This is complicated by the many purposes for which evidence can be applied in public health—strategic decision-making, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Different applications have different requirements for strength of evidence as well as different time frames for decision-making. Given the challenges of integrating data from multiple sources that are collected by different methods, public health experts have defined best available evidence as the use of all available sources used to provide relevant inputs for decision-making.

scholarly journals From big data to bedside decision-making: the case for AdverseEvents

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai ◽  
Elena Cavarretta ◽  
Giacomo Frati
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting System ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Antithrombotic Agent ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
The Individual ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Based Medicine

<p>Evidence-based medicine has gained mainstream popularity, but it requires a delicate balance between clinical evidence, physician skills, patient preferences, and costs. Facing the individual patient, even a simple decision such as which antithrombotic agent should be prescribed becomes complex. There are several reasons for this conundrum, but one of the foremost is the limited external validity of pivotal randomized trials, with their extremely restrictive selection criteria. Post-marketing reporting of adverse events is a very useful and democratic means to appraise the risk-benefit profile, but to date such reports were not organized or available. The development of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) venue for such task, the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) has substantially improved data collection. However, analysis of this extensive relational database remains complex for most but few companies or agencies. AdverseEvents is a novel online platform enabling updated and user-friendly inquiry of FAERS. Given its ease of use, flexibility and comprehensiveness, it is likely going to improve decision making for healthcare authorities and practitioners, as well as patients. This is clearly testified by the precise and informative comparative analysis that can be performed with AdverseEvents on novel antithrombotic agents.</p>

Clinical outcome assessment in mental health

2018 ◽  
pp. 191-200
Author(s):  
Skye P. Barbic ◽  
Stefan J. Cano
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Outcome Assessment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Health Disorders ◽  
Based Medicine

Clinical outcome assessment (COA) in mental health is essential to inform patient-centred care and clinical decision-making. In this chapter, the reader is introduced to COA as it is evolving in the field of mental health. Multiple approaches to COA are presented, but emphasis is placed on approaches that generate clinically meaningful data. Understanding COA can position clinicians and stakeholders to better evaluate their own practice and to contribute to the ongoing evolution of COA research and evidence-based medicine. This chapter begins with the definitions of assessment and measurement. Conceptual frameworks and models of COA development and testing are then presented. These are followed by a discussion of measurement in practice that reviews measurement issues related to clinical decision-making, programme evaluation, and clinical trials. Finally, this chapter highlights the contribution of metrology to improving health outcomes of individuals who experience mental health disorders.

Medical ethics

2020 ◽  
pp. 20-25
Author(s):  
Mike Parker ◽  
Mehrunisha Suleman ◽  
Tony Hope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Scientific Medicine ◽  
Critical Skills ◽  
Based Medicine

Medicine is both a scientific and a moral enterprise. It is as important to give reasons for the ethical aspects of clinical decisions as it is for the scientific aspects. The corollary of evidence-based medicine is reason-based ethics. Two concepts central to many ethical aspects of clinical practice are autonomy and best interests. Evidence-based medicine emphasizes the importance of critical assessment: interventions should be evaluated on the basis of evidence, not tradition. Critical skills are therefore crucial to modern scientific medicine. Importantly, medicine is a moral enterprise as well as a scientific one. Many clinical decisions involve a combination of factual and ethical aspects. It is as important to be able to give good reasons for the ethical aspects of clinical decisions as it is for the science. Society increasingly expects this from doctors as part of transparent decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document