scholarly journals Choosing what works for whom: towards a better use of mechanistic knowledge in clinical practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael K. Alaiti ◽  
Bruno T. Saragiotto ◽  
Leandro Fukusawa ◽  
Nayra D.A. Rabelo ◽  
Anamaria S. de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
What Works ◽  
Mechanistic Reasoning ◽  
Clinical Thinking

Abstract Background Clinicians commonly try to use mechanism-based knowledge to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty of chronic pain treatments to create a rationale for their clinical decision-making. Although this seems intuitive, there are some problems with this approach. Discussion The widespread use of mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice can be a source of confusion for clinicians, especially when complex interventions with different proposed mechanisms of action are equally effective. Although the available mechanistic evidence is still of very poor quality, in choosing from various treatment options for people with chronic pain, an approach that correctly incorporates mechanistic reasoning might aid clinical thinking and practice. Conclusion By explaining that not all evidence of mechanism is the same and by making a proposal to start using mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice properly, we hope to help clinicians to incorporate mechanistic reasoning to prioritize and start choosing what may best work for whom.

Clinical Trials in Schizophrenia with Results for the Real World

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (S7) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana O. Perkins
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
The Real

AbstractMost clinical data for antipsychotics come from studies designed to test the efficacy and safety of the drugs under ideal conditions, in limited subgroups of patients. In contrast, practical clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to test the effectiveness of different treatment options under conditions that more accurately reflect actual clinical practice. Consequently, PCTs are able to provide information that can be utilized by healthcare providers and other decision makers. Characteristics of PCTs include a clinically relevant question, a representative sample of patients and practice settings, sufficient power to identify modest relevant effects, randomization to protect against bias, uncertainty regarding the outcome of treatment, assessment and treatment protocols that enact best clinical practices, simple and relevant outcomes, and limited subject and investigator burden. The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) research program is an example of a PCT. The CATIE study illustrates how PCTs, when properly designed, might be helpful in informing clinical decision making. Because the CATIE study was designed to reflect the effectiveness of antipsychotics under naturalistic clinical conditions, its results should have particular applicability to the arena of clinical practice. This article provides a discussion of the differences between efficacy and effectiveness studies. In assessing the practical utility of results from the CATIE study, much can be learned on how to shape future studies of effectiveness so as to better generate data that are applicable to the “real world.”

scholarly journals 1002 Catheter Directed Thrombolysis; Are Poor Quality Referrals Impacting Patient Selection for Treatment?

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Likupe ◽  
L Shelmerdine ◽  
G Stansby
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Electronic Patient Records ◽  
Nice Guidelines ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis

Abstract Introduction NICE guidelines relating to catheter directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral DVT were renewed in March 2020. These state that patients should be considered if they have: symptoms lasting <14 days, good functional status, a life expectancy of 1 year or more and a low bleeding risk. Anecdotally, we felt the quality of DVT referrals to our tertiary Vascular Centre, were not meeting these guidelines. Method Vascular registrar on call handovers between October 2019 and October 2020 were reviewed, identifying 85 referrals for patients with iliofemoral DVT. Referrals were evaluated for the inclusion of information pertaining to the four aforementioned criteria. A search of electronic patient records identified those patients who subsequently received thrombolysis. Results Of the 85 patients, 10.6%(n = 9) received thrombolysis. Over 90% (n = 77) of referrals included none or only one of the four criteria. The most frequently included criterion was “days since symptom onset” (n = 41), but this was still fewer than half of referrals (48%). Interestingly, eight patients were noted to have concurrent malignancy with none receiving thrombolysis, although malignancy itself is not a contraindication. Neither functional status nor information relating to life expectancy was included in any of their referrals. Conclusions Good quality referrals are essential in aiding clinical decision-making surrounding treatment options for iliofemoral DVT. Our audit revealed the majority of referrals lacked the information NICE guidelines have outlined, revealing a great need for improvement. Future work in this area will look at implementing changes to bring referrals more closely in line with current guidelines.

Management of thoracic aortic lesions - the future is endovascular

VASA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weidenhagen ◽  
Bombien ◽  
Meimarakis ◽  
Geisler ◽  
A. Koeppel
Keyword(s):  
Thoracic Aorta ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Traumatic Rupture ◽  
Descending Thoracic Aorta ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Aneurysm Dissection

Open surgical repair of lesions of the descending thoracic aorta, such as aneurysm, dissection and traumatic rupture, has been the “state-of-the-art” treatment for many decades. However, in specialized cardiovascular centers, thoracic endovascular aortic repair and hybrid aortic procedures have been implemented as novel treatment options. The current clinical results show that these procedures can be performed with low morbidity and mortality rates. However, due to a lack of randomized trials, the level of reliability of these new treatment modalities remains a matter of discussion. Clinical decision-making is generally based on the experience of the vascular center as well as on individual factors, such as life expectancy, comorbidity, aneurysm aetiology, aortic diameter and morphology. This article will review and discuss recent publications of open surgical, hybrid thoracic aortic (in case of aortic arch involvement) and endovascular repair in complex pathologies of the descending thoracic aorta.

scholarly journals The use of multiple-criteria decision-making theory to measure students’ perceptions of high-fidelity simulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Anne Jersby ◽  
Paul Van-Schaik ◽  
Stephen Green ◽  
Lili Nacheva-Skopalik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
High Fidelity Simulation ◽  
Initial Exposure ◽  
Repeated Measures Design

BackgroundHigh-Fidelity Simulation (HFS) has great potential to improve decision-making in clinical practice. Previous studies have found HFS promotes self-confidence, but its effectiveness in clinical practice has not been established. The aim of this research is to establish if HFS facilitates learning that informs decision-making skills in clinical practice using MultipleCriteria DecisionMaking Theory (MCDMT).MethodsThe sample was 2nd year undergraduate pre-registration adult nursing students.MCDMT was used to measure the students’ experience of HFS and how it developed their clinical decision-making skills. MCDMT requires characteristic measurements which for the learning experience were based on five factors that underpin successful learning, and for clinical decision-making, an analytical framework was used. The study used a repeated-measures design to take two measurements: the first one after the first simulation experience and the second one after clinical placement. Baseline measurements were obtained from academics. Data were analysed using the MCDMT tool.ResultsAfter their initial exposure to simulation learning, students reported that HFS provides a high-quality learning experience (87%) and supports all aspects of clinical decision-making (85%). Following clinical practice, the level of support for clinical decision-making remained at 85%, suggesting that students believe HFS promotes transferability of knowledge to the practice setting.ConclusionOverall, students report a high level of support for learning and developing clinical decision-making skills from HFS. However, there are no comparative data available from classroom teaching of similar content so it cannot be established if these results are due to HFS alone.

Clinical Conundrums When Integrating the QbTest into a Standard ADHD Assessment of Children and Young People

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Vogt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Neuropsychological Test ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Standard Clinical Practice ◽  
Novel Method ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe uptake of the QbTest in clinical practice is increasing and has recently been supported by research evidence proposing its effectiveness in relation to clinical decision-making. However, the exact underlying process leading to this clinical benefit is currently not well established and requires further clarification. For the clinician, certain challenges arise when adding the QbTest as a novel method to standard clinical practice, such as having the skills required to interpret neuropsychological test information and assess for diagnostically relevant neurocognitive domains that are related to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or how neurocognitive domains express themselves within the behavioral classifications of ADHD and how the quantitative measurement of activity in a laboratory setting compares with real-life (ecological validity) situations as well as the impact of comorbidity on test results. This article aims to address these clinical conundrums in aid of developing a consistent approach and future guidelines in clinical practice.

Between a logic of disruption and a logic of continuation: Negotiating the legitimacy of algorithms used in automated clinical decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 136345932199674
Author(s):  
Rikke Torenholt ◽  
Henriette Langstrup
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pro Tools

In both popular and academic discussions of the use of algorithms in clinical practice, narratives often draw on the decisive potentialities of algorithms and come with the belief that algorithms will substantially transform healthcare. We suggest that this approach is associated with a logic of disruption. However, we argue that in clinical practice alongside this logic, another and less recognised logic exists, namely that of continuation: here the use of algorithms constitutes part of an established practice. Applying these logics as our analytical framing, we set out to explore how algorithms for clinical decision-making are enacted by political stakeholders, healthcare professionals, and patients, and in doing so, study how the legitimacy of delegating to an algorithm is negotiated and obtained. Empirically we draw on ethnographic fieldwork carried out in relation to attempts in Denmark to develop and implement Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) tools – involving algorithmic sorting – in clinical practice. We follow the work within two disease areas: heart rehabilitation and breast cancer follow-up care. We show how at the political level, algorithms constitute tools for disrupting inefficient work and unsystematic patient involvement, whereas closer to the clinical practice, algorithms constitute a continuation of standardised and evidence-based diagnostic procedures and a continuation of the physicians’ expertise and authority. We argue that the co-existence of the two logics have implications as both provide a push towards the use of algorithms and how a logic of continuation may divert attention away from new issues introduced with automated digital decision-support systems.

Consent, Refusal, and Waivers in Patient-Centered Dysphagia Care: Using Law, Ethics, and Evidence to Guide Clinical Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Horner ◽  
Maria Modayil ◽  
Laura Roche Chapman ◽  
An Dinh
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Legal Advice ◽  
Medical Context

PurposeWhen patients refuse medical or rehabilitation procedures, waivers of liability have been used to bar future lawsuits. The purpose of this tutorial is to review the myriad issues surrounding consent, refusal, and waivers. The larger goal is to invigorate clinical practice by providing clinicians with knowledge of ethics and law. This tutorial is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.MethodThe authors use a hypothetical case of a “noncompliant” individual under the care of an interdisciplinary neurorehabilitation team to illuminate the ethical and legal features of the patient–practitioner relationship; the elements of clinical decision-making capacity; the duty of disclosure and the right of informed consent or informed refusal; and the relationship among noncompliance, defensive practices, and iatrogenic harm. We explore the legal question of whether waivers of liability in the medical context are enforceable or unenforceable as a matter of public policy.ConclusionsSpeech-language pathologists, among other health care providers, have fiduciary and other ethical and legal obligations to patients. Because waivers try to shift liability for substandard care from health care providers to patients, courts usually find waivers of liability in the medical context unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

scholarly journals Awareness, Knowledge, and Utility of RCT Data vs RWE: Results From a Survey of US Cardiologists: Real-world Evidence in Clinical Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117954682095341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd C Villines ◽  
Mark J Cziraky ◽  
Alpesh N Amin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Body ◽  
Representative Sampling ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Wide Range

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides a potential rich source of additional information to the body of data available from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but there is a need to understand the strengths and limitations of RWE before it can be applied to clinical practice. To gain insight into current thinking in clinical decision making and utility of different data sources, a representative sampling of US cardiologists selected from the current, active Fellows of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) were surveyed to evaluate their perceptions of findings from RCTs and RWE studies and their application in clinical practice. The survey was conducted online via the ACC web portal between 12 July and 11 August 2017. Of the 548 active ACC Fellows invited as panel members, 173 completed the survey (32% response), most of whom were board certified in general cardiology (n = 119, 69%) or interventional cardiology (n = 40, 23%). The survey results indicated a wide range of familiarity with and utilization of RWE amongst cardiologists. Most cardiologists were familiar with RWE and considered RWE in clinical practice at least some of the time. However, a significant minority of survey respondents had rarely or never applied RWE learnings in their clinical practice, and many did not feel confident in the results of RWE other than registry data. These survey findings suggest that additional education on how to assess and interpret RWE could help physicians to integrate data and learnings from RCTs and RWE to best guide clinical decision making.

scholarly journals Opioid Analgesia: Perspectives on Right Use and Utility

2007 ◽  
Vol 3;10 (5;3) ◽  
pp. 479-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane C. Ballantyne
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Opioid Analgesia ◽  
Opioid Treatment

The ability of opioids to effectively and safely control acute and cancer pain has been one of several arguments used to support extending opioid treatment to patients with chronic pain, against a backdrop of considerable caution that has been based upon fears of addiction. Of course, opioids may cause addiction, but the “principle of balance” may justify that “…efforts to address abuse should not interfere with legitimate medical practice and patient care.” Yet, situations are increasingly encountered in which opioid-maintained patients are refractory to analgesia during periods of pain, or even during the course of chronic treatment. The real question is whether analgesic efficacy of opioids can be maintained over time. Overall, the evidence supporting long-term analgesic efficacy is weak. The putative mechanisms for failed opioid analgesia may be related to tolerance or opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Advances in basic sciences may help in understanding these phenomena, but the question of whether long-term opioid treatment can improve patients’ function or quality of life remains a broader issue. Opioid side effects are well known, but with chronic use, most (except constipation) subside. Still, side effects can negatively affect the outcomes and continuity of therapy. This paper addresses 1) what evidence supports the long-term utility of opioids for chronic pain; 2) how side effects may alter quality of life; 3) the nature of addiction and why it is different in pain patients, and 4) on what grounds could pain medication be denied? These questions are discussed in light of patients’ rights, and warrant balancing particular responsibilities with risks. These are framed within the Hippocratic tradition of “producing good for the patient and protecting from harm,” so as to enable 1) more informed clinical decision making, and 2) progress towards right use and utility of opioid treatment for chronic pain. Key Words: Opioids, chronic pain, addiction, side effects, utility, ethics

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document