Developing tools to enhance the use of systematic reviews for clinical care in health systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 206-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison S Morrow ◽  
Stephen P Whiteside ◽  
Leslie A Sim ◽  
Juan P Brito ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Additional Information

We aimed to develop tools that can facilitate uptake of evidence summarised in systematic reviews by clinical decision makers in health systems. After conducting a systematic review on the management of anxiety in children, we interviewed health system representatives, clinicians and patients to ask about additional information needed for decision-making. Using stakeholders’ feedback and literature searches for contextual and implementation information, we developed two tools (decision aids (DAs)), one for the health system and the second for the clinical encounter. This information mapped to factors of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision Framework. The health system DAs provided information on which patients are candidate for treatment, values and preferences, costs and resources, acceptability, impact on health equity, feasibility, drug dosing, alternative therapies, remission rates and prognosis. Health system stakeholders found the DA useful for clinical decision-making and generalisable to other conditions. The encounter DA was produced as cards containing information on issues that drive treatment decisions (effect on symptoms, effect on function, treatment burden, side effects and cost). Patients and parents prioritised the cards and chose the order in which these issues were discussed with clinician. The encounter DA was found to be helpful by patients, parents and clinicians. We conclude that the uptake of evidence summaries by health systems can be enhanced by developing tools that provide contextual and implementation information about clinical care. A dual approach addressing health system stakeholders as well as clinicians and patients is likely feasible and helpful.

scholarly journals Integrating Patient-Generated Health Data Into Clinical Care Settings or Clinical Decision-Making: Lessons Learned From Project HealthDesign

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J Cohen ◽  
Sara R Keller ◽  
Gillian R Hayes ◽  
David A Dorr ◽  
Joan S Ash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Lessons Learned

Choosing care

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Cribb
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Social Action ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Service Planning ◽  
Design Decisions

This chapter focuses on some of the mainstream and circumscribed examples of rethinking agency. Once one starts seeing and treating people as healthcare actors—as having something to contribute to their own care and to health systems and environments—many possibilities emerge. Some of these are already absorbed into mainstream thinking and others are more challenging or radical. The former includes the expectation that patients should play an active role in clinical decision making that affects them. The latter extend much more widely—questioning why ‘lay people’ are often allowed to be influential only in circumscribed instances, when their agency and perspectives could be equally influential in agenda setting and design decisions in all aspects of service planning, care provision, research, resource allocation and so on. This question highlights the potential to move beyond an individualist or consumerist conception of agency and towards more civic, social and democratic conceptions of social action.

Clinical Decision Making in the ICU: Dysphagia Screening, Assessment, and Treatment

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (03) ◽  
pp. 170-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin B. Brodsky ◽  
Emily B. Mayfield ◽  
Roxann Diez Gross
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Level Of Care ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
Screening Assessment

AbstractClinicians often perceive the intensive care unit as among the most intimidating environments in patient care. With the proper training, acquisition of skill, and approach to clinical care, feelings of intimidation may be overcome with the great rewards this level of care has to offer. This review—spanning the ages of birth to senescence and covering oral/nasal endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy—presents a clinically relevant, directly applicable review of screening, assessment, and treatment of dysphagia in the patients who are critically ill for clinical speech–language pathologists and identifies gaps in the clinical peer-reviewed literature for researchers.

scholarly journals Influence of psychiatric or social backgrounds on clinical decision making: a randomized, controlled multi-centre study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yosuke Yamauchi ◽  
Takashi Shiga ◽  
Kiyoshi Shikino ◽  
Takahiro Uechi ◽  
Yasuaki Koyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Accuracy Score ◽  
Multi Centre Study ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Free Care ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background Frequent and repeated visits from patients with mental illness or free medical care recipients may elicit physicians’ negative emotions and influence their clinical decision making. This study investigated the impact of the psychiatric or social background of such patients on physicians’ decision making about whether to offer recommendations for further examinations and whether they expressed an appropriate disposition toward the patient. Methods A randomized, controlled multi-centre study of residents in transitional, internal medicine, or emergency medicine was conducted in five hospitals. Upon randomization, participants were stratified by gender and postgraduate year, and they were allocated to scenario set 1 or 2. They answered questions pertaining to decision-making based on eight clinical vignettes. Half of the eight vignettes presented to scenario set 1 included additional patient information, such as that the patient had a past medical history of schizophrenia or that the patient was a recipient of free care who made frequent visits to the doctor (biased vignettes). The other half included no additional information (neutral vignettes). For scenario set 2, the four biased vignettes presented to scenario set 1 were neutralized, and the four neutral vignettes were rendered biased by providing additional information. After reading, participants answered decision-making questions regarding diagnostic examination, interventions, or patient disposition. The primary analysis was a repeated-measures ANOVA on the mean management accuracy score, with patient background information as a within-subject factor (no bias, free care recipients, or history of schizophrenia). Results A total of 207 questionnaires were collected. Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that additional background information had influence on mean accuracy score (F(7, 206) = 13.84, p <  0.001 partial η2 = 0.063). Post hoc pairwise multiple comparison test, Sidak test, showed a significant difference between schizophrenia and no bias condition (p <  0.05). The ratings for patient likability were lower in the biased vignettes compared to the neutral vignettes, which was associated with the lower utilization of medical resources by the physicians. Conclusions Additional background information on past medical history of schizophrenia increased physicians’ mistakes in decision making. Patients’ psychiatric backgrounds should not bias physicians’ decision-making. Based on these findings, physicians are recommended to avoid being influenced by medically unrelated information.

Are Patient Decision Aids the Best Way to Improve Clinical Decision Making? Report of the IPDAS Symposium

2007 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 599-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽  
Wendy L. Nelson ◽  
Michael Pignone ◽  
Glyn Elwyn ◽  
David R. Rovner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision

scholarly journals Utility and Acceptability of Influenza Surveillance amongst Emergency Providers

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea F. Dugas ◽  
Howard Burkom ◽  
Anna L. DuVal ◽  
Richard Rothman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Surveillance Data ◽  
Influenza Surveillance ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Provider Surveys

We provided emergency department providers with a real-time laboratory-based influenza surveillance tool, and evaluated the utility and acceptability of the surveillance information using provider surveys. The majority of emergency department providers found the surveillance data useful and indicated the additional information impacted their clinical decision making regarding influenza testing and treatment.

Why Machine Learning Should Be Taught in Medical Schools (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Nagy ◽  
Nathan Radakovich ◽  
Aziz Nazha
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Medical Workforce ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Clinical Tools

UNSTRUCTURED The rapid development of machine learning (ML) applications in healthcare promises to transform the landscape of healthcare. In order for ML advancements to be effectively utilized in clinical care, it is necessary for the medical workforce to be prepared to handle these changes. As physicians in training are exposed to a wide breadth of clinical tools during medical school, this offers an ideal opportunity to introduce ML concepts. A foundational understanding of ML will not only be practically useful for clinicians, but will also address ethical concerns for clinical decision making. While select medical schools have made effort to integrate ML didactics and practice into their curriculum, we argue that foundational ML principles should be taught to broadly to medical students across the country.

In Conversation… Prof. Sam Cortese on ADHD, Coh-fit study

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Adolescent Psychiatry ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Child And Adolescent ◽  
Child And Adolescent Psychiatry

Professor Sam Cortese discusses ADHD, research in relation to clinical decision-making in child and adolescent psychiatry, the importance of systematic reviews, and his work on the European ADHD Guidelines Group and its work on ADHD management during the covid-19 pandemic. Includes transcription, and links.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document