Integrating research and evidence-based guidance into prescribing practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13
Author(s):  
Adam Bedson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Prescribing Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

The College of Paramedics and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are clear that they require advanced paramedics, as non-medical prescribers, to review and critically appraise the evidence base underpinning their prescribing practice. Evidence-based clinical guidance such as that published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is recommended as the primary source of evidence on which paramedics should base their prescribing decisions. NICE guidance reflects the best available evidence on which to base clinical decision-making. However, paramedics still need to critically appraise the evidence underpinning their prescribing, applying expertise and decision-making skills to inform their clinical reasoning. This is achieved by synthesising information from multiple sources to make appropriate, evidence-based judgments and diagnoses. This first article in the prescribing paramedic pharmacology series considers the importance of evidence-based paramedic prescribing, alongside a range of tools that can be used to develop and apply critical appraisal skills to support prescribing decision-making. These include critical appraisal checklists and research reporting tools.

Integrating research and evidence-based guidance into prescribing practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-123
Author(s):  
Adam Bedson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Prescribing Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

The College of Paramedics and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are clear that they require advanced paramedics, as non-medical prescribers, to review and critically appraise the evidence base underpinning their prescribing practice. Evidence-based clinical guidance such as that published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is recommended as the primary source of evidence on which paramedics should base their prescribing decisions. NICE guidance reflects the best available evidence on which to base clinical decision-making. However, paramedics still need to critically appraise the evidence underpinning their prescribing, applying expertise and decision-making skills to inform their clinical reasoning. This is achieved by synthesising information from multiple sources to make appropriate, evidence-based judgments and diagnoses. This first article in the prescribing paramedic pharmacology series considers the importance of evidence-based paramedic prescribing, alongside a range of tools that can be used to develop and apply critical appraisal skills to support prescribing decision-making. These include critical appraisal check lists and research reporting tools

Evidence-Based Decision Making in Action: Part 2 – Evaluating and Applying the Clinical Evidence

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane L. Forrest ◽  
Syrene A. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Online Search ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
The Third ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Abstract This is the second of a two-part series addressing the use of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in the use of home bleaching. In Part 1, a case scenario demonstrated the skills involved in (1) structuring a clinical question and (2) conducting an online search using PubMed.1 Part 2 demonstrates the third and fourth steps in the EBDM process, i.e., (3) critical appraisal to assess the validity of a study and (4) applying that information to clinical decision making. This 4-step approach to EBDM recognizes that clinicians can never be completely current with all conditions, medications, materials, and products. Thus, EBDM provides a mechanism for addressing these gaps in knowledge in order to provide the best care possible. Citation Forrest JL, Miller SA. Evidence-Based Decision Making in Action: Part 2 – Evaluating and Applying the Clinical Evidence. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 February;(4)1:042-052.

scholarly journals Methods for the Development of Healthcare Practice Recommendations Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Platz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Meta Analyses

Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.

What is Evidence-Based Practice?

1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (11) ◽  
pp. 470-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Clare Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

Evidence-based practice are the buzz words of current health care. This article explores what evidence-based practice actually means for occupational therapists. Evidence-based practice has two strands. The first strand involves using the best available evidence as part of the clinical decision-making process. The second strand involves drawing the evidence together in the form of systematic reviews. These reviews may then be used to help inform the development of clinical guidelines. This article outlines and discusses both strands of evidence-based practice and the relevance of each strand to practising occupational therapists. It explores how therapists can locate, evaluate and use evidence to inform their practice. The article focuses particularly on the development of critical appraisal skills. The role of systematic reviews and the relevance of clinical guidelines for occupational therapy are discussed.

Person-centred clinical reasoning and evidence-based healthcare

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 215
Author(s):  
Roger Kerry ◽  
Matthew Low ◽  
Peter O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Population Data ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Healthcare ◽  
Causal Theories

Purpose: Clinical practice, and in particular decision-making, are dependent on data and knowledge which are relevant to the context at hand. Numerous frameworks have existed which aim to facilitate best clinical decision-making for healthcare professionals and their patients, for example clinical reasoning and the evidence-based healthcare models. The purpose of this paper is to provide some reconciliation between apparently conflicting models of healthcare practice with regards to best practice.Methods: We provide a theoretical narrative account of clinical practice with regards to clinical reasoning and best decision-making. We problematise the practice frameworks of clinical reasoning and evidence base healthcare by suggesting they are conflicting and contradictory to each other. We frame the arguments available with philosophical views of causation, making the assumption that causation lies central to all aspects of knowledge. We use the narrative to expose causal theories behind different practice models and illustrate our account with a case study.Results: Clinical reasoning and evidence-based healthcare are characterised by different causal theories which do not readily align with each other. By reconceptualising causation as a dispositional phenomenon, reconciliation between individualised person-centred care and the population data which are the core interest of evidence-based healthcare, can be found, thus preserving the most valuable aspects of each practice framework.Conclusion: Reconceptualising causation in dispositionalist terms facilitates a more person-centred, multi-dimensional clinical reasoning process. This in-turn allows for the integration of data from prioritised methods of evidence-based healthcare into complex and context-sensitive individualised clinical situations.

Structured clinical decision making: Is it different ?

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 788-788
Author(s):  
R. Travers ◽  
A. Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Assessments ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Level Of Risk

IntroductionThe Psychiatrists are called to assess the level of risk in violent and sex offenders’ population. There are differing perceptions about formalising the severity and management of risk. The proponents of actuarial decision making propose that it is scientific and evidence based approach. The advocates of professional judgment however think that actuarial tools usually miss out on the interplay of compounding factors and can under or over estimate the level of risk.ObjectivesTo review consecutive patient assessments and qualitatively compare it with HCR-20 and RSVP tools for violent and sex offending patients.AimsTo report the difference in outcome in the domains of overall severity of risk, risk formulation and clinical decision making for management of the risk in these patient groups.MethodsWe aim to compare twenty consecutive patients where professional judgment of the clinician determined the severity of the risk, risk formulation and management. We then aim to use the information available to check for any differences in these areas when HCR-20 and RSVP are employed.ResultsThe comparison and benefits of professional judgment and actuarial decision making are reported.ConclusionsThe professionals (providers) are being increasingly compelled by commissioners(purchasers) to evidence base their clinical decision making. The professional judgments are more likely to be challenged in the courts. People are easily impressed by decisions which are evidence based though they may have limited understanding of research environment and population studied.

scholarly journals Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine: Supporting Decision-Making

2000 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1041-1050 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P Price
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Laboratory Medicine ◽  
Experimental Methodology ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Test Procedures ◽  
Specific Test ◽  
Explicit Statement

Abstract There is an implicit acceptance that an evidence-based culture underpins the practice of laboratory medicine, in part because it is perceived as the scientific foundation of medicine. However, several reviews of specific test procedures or technologies have shown that the evidence base is limited and in many cases flawed. One of the key deficiencies in the scientific literature on diagnostic tests often is the absence of an explicit statement of the clinical need, i.e., the clinical or operational question that the use of the test is seeking to answer. Several reviews of the literature on specific procedures have also demonstrated that the experimental methodology used is flawed with, in some cases, significant bias being introduced. Despite these limitations it is recognized that a more evidence-based approach will help in the education and training of health professionals, in the creation of a research agenda, in the production of guidelines, in the support of clinical decision-making, and in resource allocation. Furthermore, as knowledge and technologies continue to be developed, an evidence-based strategy will be critical to harnessing these developments.

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Supporting the Development of Clinical Reasoning of Preprofessional Novices in Dysphagia Management

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (03) ◽  
pp. 151-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Doeltgen ◽  
Stacie Attrill ◽  
Joanne Murray
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Implicit Processing ◽  
Reasoning Skills

AbstractProficient clinical reasoning is a critical skill in high-quality, evidence-based management of swallowing impairment (dysphagia). Clinical reasoning in this area of practice is a cognitively complex process, as it requires synthesis of multiple sources of information that are generated during a thorough, evidence-based assessment process and which are moderated by the patient's individual situations, including their social and demographic circumstances, comorbidities, or other health concerns. A growing body of health and medical literature demonstrates that clinical reasoning skills develop with increasing exposure to clinical cases and that the approaches to clinical reasoning differ between novices and experts. It appears that it is not the amount of knowledge held, but the way it is used, that distinguishes a novice from an experienced clinician. In this article, we review the roles of explicit and implicit processing as well as illness scripts in clinical decision making across the continuum of medical expertise and discuss how they relate to the clinical management of swallowing impairment. We also reflect on how this literature may inform educational curricula that support SLP students in developing preclinical reasoning skills that facilitate their transition to early clinical practice. Specifically, we discuss the role of case-based curricula to assist students to develop a meta-cognitive awareness of the different approaches to clinical reasoning, their own capabilities and preferences, and how and when to apply these in dysphagia management practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document