scholarly journals The difficult crossroads of decisions at COVID-19: how can the deontology implicit in Evidence-Based Medicine help us to understand the different attitudes of doctors at this time?

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
MIGUEL PRESTES NACUL ◽  
MARCO ANTÔNIO AZEVEDO
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conservation Of Resources ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
The Many ◽  
Based Medicine

ABSTRACT One of the struggles faced by physicians in clinical decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic is how to deal with already available or lacking scientific evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic has a large impact in the routine of the many health services, including surgery, which demanded changes in assist protocols. Questions began to arise about well-established surgery conducts due to situations related to SARS-COV-2 infection, and, according to public health measures that are necessary to fight the pandemic. In situations of scarce available evidence, it is natural for us to have to deal with systematically more fragile, provisory and bias-susceptible information. Considering the principles that guide Evidence Based Medicine and Bioethical, the authors analyze the complexity of the medical decision-making during this time. Medical conducts must be adapted to the context of fighting the pandemic and consider patients and healthcare providers exposure and well-being and, lastly, the conservation of resources. The authors conclude that acceptance and tolerance to divergence is commendable, being a path to achieving unity in the diversity of medicine in times of little safe knowledge.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine in judicial decisions concerning right to healthcare

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Rocha Dias ◽  
Geraldo Bezerra da Silva Junior
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Private Health Insurance ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Unified Health System ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Based Medicine

ABSTRACT Objective To analyze, from the examination of decisions issued by Brazilian courts, how Evidence-Based Medicine was applied and if it led to well-founded decisions, searching the best scientific knowledge. Methods The decisions made by the Federal Courts were searched, with no time limits, at the website of the Federal Court Council, using the expression “Evidence-Based Medicine”. With regard to decisions issued by the court of the State of São Paulo, the search was done at the webpage and applying the same terms and criterion as to time. Next, a qualitative analysis of the decisions was conducted for each action, to verify if the patient/plaintiff’s situation, as well as the efficacy or inefficacy of treatments or drugs addressed in existing protocols were considered before the court granted the provision claimed by the plaintiff. Results In less than one-third of the decisions there was an appropriate discussion about efficacy of the procedure sought in court, in comparison to other procedures available in clinical guidelines adopted by the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde) or by private health insurance plans, considering the individual situation. The majority of the decisions involved private health insurance plans (n=13, 68%). Conclusion The number of decisions that did consider scientific evidence and the peculiarities of each patient was a concern. Further discussion on Evidence-Based Medicine in judgments involving public healthcare are required.

scholarly journals Impact of deliberate practice on evidence-based medicine attitudes and behaviours of health care professionals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eelco Draaisma ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio ◽  
Jolita Bekhof ◽  
A. Debbie C. Jaarsma ◽  
Paul L. P. Brand
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Deliberate Practice ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Teaching Activities ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Introduction Although evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching activities may improve short-term EBM knowledge and skills, they have little long-term impact on learners’ EBM attitudes and behaviour. This study examined the effects of learning EBM through stand-alone workshops or various forms of deliberate EBM practice. Methods We assessed EBM attitudes and behaviour with the evidence based practice inventory questionnaire, in paediatric health care professionals who had only participated in a stand-alone EBM workshop (controls), participants with a completed PhD in clinical research (PhDs), those who had completed part of their paediatric residency at a department (Isala Hospital) which systematically implemented EBM in its clinical and teaching activities (former Isala residents), and a reference group of paediatric professionals currently employed at Isala’s paediatric department (current Isala participants). Results Compared to controls (n = 16), current Isala participants (n = 13) reported more positive EBM attitudes (p < 0.01), gave more priority to using EBM in decision making (p = 0.001) and reported more EBM behaviour (p = 0.007). PhDs (n = 20) gave more priority to using EBM in medical decision making (p < 0.001) and reported more EBM behaviour than controls (p = 0.016). Discussion Health care professionals exposed to deliberate practice of EBM, either in the daily routines of their department or by completing a PhD in clinical research, view EBM as more useful and are more likely to use it in decision making than their peers who only followed a standard EBM workshop. These findings support the use of deliberate practice as the basis for postgraduate EBM educational activities.

scholarly journals Technology of Supporting Medical Decision-Making Using Evidence-Based Medicine and Artificial Intelligence

2020 ◽  
Vol 176 ◽  
pp. 1703-1712
Author(s):  
Georgy Lebedev ◽  
Eduard Fartushnyi ◽  
Igor Fartushnyi ◽  
Igor Shaderkin ◽  
Herman Klimenko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Based Medicine

Inequalities of health insurance guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic varicose veins

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
M W Schul ◽  
T King ◽  
L S Kabnick
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Vein Disease

Objectives The emerging model of US healthcare delivery is aimed at reducing costs, standardizing care, and improving outcomes. Although it is necessary for healthcare providers and insurance carriers to work together to achieve those goals, insurers have the added duty of assuring physicians and patients that they comprehend the medical evidence and, based on that understanding, construct policies. Are US insurers meeting that responsibility or are they simply creating policies to serve their own needs? Methods The medical policies of several US health insurers were analysed. The goal was to see whether it could readily be determined if these carriers used evidence-based medicine consistently to create uniform policies for the treatment of patients with symptomatic varicose veins. The literature was also reviewed to determine whether increased insurance documentation requirements have affected cost reduction, standardization of care and/or improvement of outcomes related to chronic vein disease management. Results There is a dramatic lack of uniformity among the insurance policies reviewed. Insurers appear to not choose important papers to create policy but use carefully chosen articles to reinforce what they want their policies to say. In so doing, conflicting policy criteria are being created. Complicating this inconsistency, rules for medical necessity are modified frequently, raising frustration levels among vein providers and their patients. What is clear is that costs are not being lowered, care is not being standardized and little is being done to prevent potential complications resulting from chronic vein disease. Conclusions Patients and physicians are increasingly ill-served by, and frustrated with, the clear lack of consistency in the medical policy criteria being created by US insurance carriers in covering the treatment of patients with symptomatic varicose veins. The contradictory coverage requirements, seemingly based on no understanding of evidence-based medicine guidelines, and total variability in reimbursement for various types of treatment options is particularly worrisome. Collaboration between venous treatment providers and insurance carriers, to create evidence-based standards of care, would be timely and beneficial in creating guidelines for optimal patient care.

‘Evidence-based’, ‘Cost-Effective’ and ‘Preference-Driven’ Medicine: Decision Analysis Based Medical Decision Making is the Pre-Requisite

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Three broad movements are seeking to change the world of medicine. The proponents of ‘evidence-based medicine’ are mainly concerned with ensuring that strategies of proven clinical effectiveness are adopted. Health economists are mainly concerned to establish that ‘cost-effectiveness’ and not ‘clinical effectiveness’ is the criterion used in determining option selection. A variety of patient support and public interest groups, including many health economists, are mainly concerned with ensuring that patient and public preferences drive clinical and policy decisions. This paper argues that decision analysis based medical decision making (DABMDM) constitutes the pre-requisite for the widespread introduction of the main principles embodied in evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine and preference-driven medicine; that, in the light of current modes of practice, seeking to promote these principles without a prior or simultaneous move to DABMDM is equivalent to asking the cart to move without the horse; and that in fact DABMDM subsumes and enjoins the valuable aspects of all three. Particular attention is paid to differentiating between DABMDM and EBM, by way of analysis of various expositions of EBM and examination of two recent empirical studies. EBM, as so far expounded, reflects a problem-solving attitude that results in a heavy concentration on RCTs and meta-analyses, rather than a broad decision making focus that concentrates on meeting all the requirements of a good clinical decision. The latter include: Ensuring that inferences from RCTs and meta-analyses to individual patients (or patient groups) are made explicitly; paying equally serious attention to evidence on values and costs as to clinical evidence; and accepting the inadequacy of ‘taking into account and bearing in mind’ as a way of integrating the multiple and distinct elements of a decision.

Practicing Evidence-Based Medicine

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barnett ◽  
Niteesh Choudhry
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
The North ◽  
Based Medicine

Today, a plethora of resources for evidence-based medicine (EBM) are available via alert services, compendia, and more. In theory, a clinician researching a topic or looking for information regarding a clinical decision should easily find the literature or synopses needed. However, the real challenge lies in recognizing which resources (out of hundreds or possibly thousands) present the best and most reliable evidence. As well, evidence from research is only part of the decision calculus, and the clinician, not the evidence, makes the final decisions. Medical decision analysis attempts to formalize the process and reduce it to algebra, but it is difficult or impossible to represent all the components of a decision mathematically and validly let alone do so in “real time” for individual patients. This review discusses these challenges and more, including how to ask answerable questions, understand the hierarchy for evidence-based information resources, critically appraise evidence, and apply research results to patient care. Figures show the total number of new articles in Medline from 1965 to 2012, a “4S” hierarchy of preappraised medicine, percentage of physician and medical student respondents with a correct or incorrect answer to a question about calculating the positive predictive value of a hypothetical screening test, a nomogram for Bayes’s rule, an example of nomogram use for pulmonary embolism, and a model for evidence-informed clinical decisions. Tables list selected barriers to the implementation of EBM; Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework for formulating clinical questions; guides for assessing medical texts for evidence-based features; clinically useful measures of disease frequency and statistical significance and precision; definitions of clinically useful measures of diagnostic test performance and interpretation; definitions of clinically useful measures of treatment effects from clinical trials; summary of results and derived calculations from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET); and selected number needed to treat values for common therapies. This review contains 6 highly rendered figures, 9 tables, and 28 references.

Practicing Evidence-Based Medicine (SAGHE)

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barnett ◽  
Niteesh Choudhry
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
The North ◽  
Based Medicine

Today, a plethora of resources for evidence-based medicine (EBM) are available via alert services, compendia, and more. In theory, a clinician researching a topic or looking for information regarding a clinical decision should easily find the literature or synopses needed. However, the real challenge lies in recognizing which resources (out of hundreds or possibly thousands) present the best and most reliable evidence. As well, evidence from research is only part of the decision calculus, and the clinician, not the evidence, makes the final decisions. Medical decision analysis attempts to formalize the process and reduce it to algebra, but it is difficult or impossible to represent all the components of a decision mathematically and validly let alone do so in “real time” for individual patients. This review discusses these challenges and more, including how to ask answerable questions, understand the hierarchy for evidence-based information resources, critically appraise evidence, and apply research results to patient care. Figures show the total number of new articles in Medline from 1965 to 2012, a “4S” hierarchy of preappraised medicine, percentage of physician and medical student respondents with a correct or incorrect answer to a question about calculating the positive predictive value of a hypothetical screening test, a nomogram for Bayes’s rule, an example of nomogram use for pulmonary embolism, and a model for evidence-informed clinical decisions. Tables list selected barriers to the implementation of EBM; Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework for formulating clinical questions; guides for assessing medical texts for evidence-based features; clinically useful measures of disease frequency and statistical significance and precision; definitions of clinically useful measures of diagnostic test performance and interpretation; definitions of clinically useful measures of treatment effects from clinical trials; summary of results and derived calculations from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET); and selected number needed to treat values for common therapies. This review contains 6 highly rendered figures, 9 tables, and 28 references.

Practicing Evidence-Based Medicine

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barnett ◽  
Niteesh Choudhry
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
The North ◽  
Based Medicine

Today, a plethora of resources for evidence-based medicine (EBM) are available via alert services, compendia, and more. In theory, a clinician researching a topic or looking for information regarding a clinical decision should easily find the literature or synopses needed. However, the real challenge lies in recognizing which resources (out of hundreds or possibly thousands) present the best and most reliable evidence. As well, evidence from research is only part of the decision calculus, and the clinician, not the evidence, makes the final decisions. Medical decision analysis attempts to formalize the process and reduce it to algebra, but it is difficult or impossible to represent all the components of a decision mathematically and validly let alone do so in “real time” for individual patients. This review discusses these challenges and more, including how to ask answerable questions, understand the hierarchy for evidence-based information resources, critically appraise evidence, and apply research results to patient care. Figures show the total number of new articles in Medline from 1965 to 2012, a “4S” hierarchy of preappraised medicine, percentage of physician and medical student respondents with a correct or incorrect answer to a question about calculating the positive predictive value of a hypothetical screening test, a nomogram for Bayes’s rule, an example of nomogram use for pulmonary embolism, and a model for evidence-informed clinical decisions. Tables list selected barriers to the implementation of EBM; Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework for formulating clinical questions; guides for assessing medical texts for evidence-based features; clinically useful measures of disease frequency and statistical significance and precision; definitions of clinically useful measures of diagnostic test performance and interpretation; definitions of clinically useful measures of treatment effects from clinical trials; summary of results and derived calculations from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET); and selected number needed to treat values for common therapies. This review contains 6 highly rendered figures, 9 tables, and 28 references.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document