Medicine and evidence: knowledge and action in clinical practice

Reasoning, evidence, and clinical decision-making: The great debate moves forward

When the editorial to the first philosophy thematic edition of this journal was published in 2010, critical questioning of underlying assumptions, regarding such crucial issues as clinical decision making, practical reasoning, and the nature of evidence in health care, was still derided by some prominent contributors to the literature on medical practice. Things have changed dramatically. Far from being derided or dismissed as a distraction from practical concerns, the discussion of such fundamental questions, and their implications for matters of practical import, is currently the preoccupation of some of the most influential and insightful contributors to the on-going evidence-based medicine debate. Discussions focus on practical wisdom, evidence, and value and the relationship between rationality and context. In the debate about clinical practice, we are going to have to be more explicit and rigorous in future in developing and defending our views about what is valuable in human life.

Certainty rating in pre-and post-tests of study modules in an online clinical pharmacy course - A pilot study to evaluate teaching and learning

BACKGROUND

Graduate and post-graduate education for health professionals is increasingly delivered in an e-learning environment, where automated, continuous formative testing with integrated feedback can guide students' self-assessment and learning. Asking students to rate the certainty they assign to the correctness of their answers to test questions can potentially provide deeper insights into the success of teaching, with test results informing course designers whether learning outcomes have been achieved. It may also have implications for decision making in clinical practice.

METHODS

A study of pre-and post-tests for five study modules was designed to evaluate the teaching and learning within a pharmacotherapeutic course in an online postgraduate clinical pharmacy program. Certainty based marking of multiple choice questions (MCQ) was adapted for formative pre- and post-study module testing by asking students to rate their certainty of correctness of MCQ answers. Paired t-tests and a coding scheme were used to analyse changes in answers and certainty between pre-and post-tests. A survey evaluated students' experience with the novel formative testing design.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine pharmacists enrolled in the postgraduate program participated in the study. Overall 1315 matched pairs of MCQ answers and certainty ratings between pre- and post-module tests were available for evaluation. Most students identified correct answers in post-tests and increased their certainty compared to pre-tests. Evaluation of certainty ratings in addition to correctness of answers identified MCQs and topic areas for revision to course designers. A survey of students showed that assigning certainty ratings to their answers assisted in structuring and focusing their learning throughout online study modules, facilitating identification of areas of uncertainty and gaps in their clinical knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding certainty ratings to MCQ answers seems to engage students with formative testing and feedback and focus their learning in a web-based postgraduate pharmacy course. It also offers deeper insight into the successful delivery of online course content, identifying areas for improvement of teaching and content delivery as well as test question design.

Teaching by (bad) example: what a confused attempt to "advance" EBM reveals about its underlying problems: commentary on Jenicek, M. (2015). Do we need another discipline in medicine? From epidemiology and evidence-based medicine to cognitive medicine and medical thinking. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 21:1028-1034

Professor Jenicek's paper is confused in that his proposal to 'integrate' what he means by 'evidence-based scientific theory and cognitive approaches to medical thinking' actually embodies a contradiction. But, although confused, he succeeds in teaching us more about the EBM debate than those who seem keen to forge ahead without addressing the underlying epistemological problems that Jenicek brings to our attention. Fundamental questions about the relationship between evidence, knowledge and reason still require resolution if we are to see a genuine advance in this debate.

Qualitative research in critical care: Has its time finally come?

As clinicians, we are well acquainted with using randomised controlled trials, case-control studies and cohort studies together with p-values, odds ratios and confidence intervals to understand and improve the way in which we care for our patients. We have a degree of familiarity, trust and confidence with well-performed scientific quantitative studies in critical care and we make a judgment about our practice based on their recommendations. The same cannot be said of qualitative research, and its use accounts for only a small proportion of published studies in critical care. There are many research questions in our environment that lend themselves to a qualitative research design. Our positivistic education as doctors potentially incites distrust towards such studies and, as such, they are seldom undertaken in our units. We aim to describe and discuss the differences between quantitative and qualitative research with focus being given to common misunderstandings and misconceptions. An overview of the methods of data collection and analysis is provided with references towards published qualitative studies in critical care. Finally, we provide pragmatic and practical instruction and guidance for those wishing to undertake their own qualitative study in critical care.

Care decision making of frontline providers of maternal and newborn health services in the greater Accra region of Ghana

Objectives

To explore the “how” and “why” of care decision making by frontline providers of maternal and newborn services in the Greater Accra region of Ghana and determine appropriate interventions needed to support its quality and related maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods

A cross sectional and descriptive mixed method study involving a desk review of maternal and newborn care protocols and guidelines availability, focus group discussions and administration of a structured questionnaire and observational checklist to frontline providers of maternal and newborn care.

Results

Tacit knowledge or ‘mind lines’ was an important primary approach to care decision making. When available, protocols and guidelines were used as decision making aids, especially when they were simple handy tools and in situations where providers were not sure what their next step in management had to be. Expert opinion and peer consultation were also used through face to face discussions, phone calls, text messages, and occasional emails depending on the urgency and communication medium access. Health system constraints such as availability of staff, essential medicines, supplies and equipment; management issues (including leadership and interpersonal relations among staff), and barriers to referral were important influences in decision making. Frontline health providers welcomed the idea of interventions to support clinical decision making and made several proposals towards the development of such an intervention. They felt such an intervention ought to be multi-faceted to impact the multiple influences simultaneously. Effective interventions would also need to address immediate challenges as well as more long-term challenges influencing decision-making.

Conclusion

Supporting frontline worker clinical decision making for maternal and newborn services is an important but neglected aspect of improved quality of care towards attainment of MDG 4 & 5. A multi-faceted intervention is probably the best way to make a difference given the multiple inter-related issues.

The application of Cartwright's concept of capacities to complex interventions in psychiatry

Cartwright and Munro argued that extrapolation of findings from randomized controlled trials to other settings can be difficult because information about the underlying causal structure and subgroups is often not available. They advocated the use of 'capacities' - that is fixed causal contributions - in predicting effects of interventions. In psychiatry, it is often not possible to determine what the fixed causal contributions are and one can only establish 'approximate capacities'. However, using 'approximate capacities' does imply a different way of evaluating health services, especially combined interventions. In health service research, if different studies, randomized controlled trials or other designs, have given different outcomes, the best way to investigate the effectiveness of a particular way of service organization is not to conduct more randomized controlled trials. It is preferable to study the effects of certain elements of the complex intervention, which have been tested before in other settings, that is investigating 'approximate capacities'. One should check whether the separate elements do form a part of the complex intervention in practice and whether they have the same effect as in other studies and if not, why not. This enhances knowledge about the underlying causal structure and increases the possibility of extrapolation of the findings.

Mechanisms: what are they evidence for in evidence-based medicine?

Even though the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement labels mechanisms a low quality form of evidence, consideration of the mechanisms on which medicine relies, and the distinct roles that mechanisms might play in clinical practice, offers a number of insights into EBM itself. In this paper, I examine the connections between EBM and mechanisms from several angles. I diagnose what went wrong in two examples where mechanistic reasoning failed to generate accurate predictions for how a dysfunctional mechanism would respond to intervention. I then use these examples to explain why we should expect this kind of mechanistic reasoning to fail in systematic ways, by situating these failures in terms of evolved complexity of the causal system(s) in question. I argue that there is still a different role in which mechanisms continue to figure as evidence in EBM: namely, in guiding the application of population-level recommendations to individual patients. Thus, even though the evidence-based movement rejects one role in which mechanistic reasoning serves as evidence, there are other evidentiary roles for mechanistic reasoning. This renders plausible the claims of some critics of EBM who point to the ineliminable role of clinical experience. Clearly specifying the ways in which mechanisms and mechanistic reasoning can be involved in clinical practice frames the discussion about EBM and clinical experience in more fruitful terms.

Views on evidence from nursing and midwifery opinion leaders

National registration standards in Australia require nurses and midwives to be educationally prepared to use an evidence-based framework for their practice. These standards assume a shared professional understanding of evidence and, an agreed approach towards educational preparation for evidence implementation. In this study, a qualitative phenomenographic approach is used to explore the ways in which nursing opinion leaders understand 'evidence' within the context of evidence-based practice (EBP). Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 nursing and midwifery opinion leaders across the state of New South Wales, Australia. The findings suggest that views of evidence are deeply imbedded within individual clinical, contextual and professional experiences, and are highly variable. Establishing basic consensus on the meaning of evidence for the nursing and midwifery context is fundamental to the successful educational preparation of nurses and midwives for EBP. It is proposed that future evaluations of EBP education in nursing and midwifery examine the assumptions on which such programs are based as individual variation may be a significant factor in both defining and measuring the success of educational interventions for evidence implementation.

The social construction of chronicity--a key to understanding chronic care transformations

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to argue the importance of contemporary analysis of the modern social construction of chronicity--encapsulating the world views of the chronically ill, and the medical and health system constructions of chronic disease, through the nature of care for chronic conditions. It is argued that chronic diseases are themselves, socially constructed, despite widely accepted disease classification systems. Thus, there is a need to examine how different ideas have permeated our clinical and health system developments and their social context and vice versa.

METHODS

We examine historical ideas, theory and evidence about the tensions in social construction of chronic illness by those afflicted and the responses of society, the medical and health professions and increasingly the public and private institutions that shape health care. This is with the background of major differences in the two cultures that create knowledge: those based upon argument and intellectual logic--hermeneutic, and those based upon 'objectivist' empirical science, often called heuristic. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the flagship of disease management, increasingly narrative-based medicine and other similar genres are becoming the pragmatic face of social constructions, yet sit in juxtaposition without synthesis. A third culture has emerged of scientific intellectuals who straddle these cultures and in health care their public face is 'mixed methods'.

FINDINGS

Recent cases of modern ideas about improving chronic care were reviewed. We found that despite developments of social theory, the world view of the chronically ill exerts small influence in health system redesign, apparently dominated by chronic disease models. Confusion remains within health system reforms as to the social construction of chronicity--chronic disease, chronic condition or chronic illness and chronic care transformations. The role of Primary Care remains ambiguous straddling disease and illness. Radical redesign of health systems is taking place without an understanding and discourse about the nature of their construction. Ad hoc eclectism with unquestioning adoption of the dominant EBM paradigm is driving a new health culture based on disease-based performance incentives, which is intrusive beyond the medical model and pays little attention to narratives of illness and even less to the whole social reconstruction of illness and wellness.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care systems cannot afford to avoid, and should actively embrace the critiques of social theory and analyses in the transformations of health systems to improve chronic care. Creative tensions between empirical and intellectual critique, and a synthetic middle ground are likely to lead to more realistic and innovative approaches spanning the nature of chronicity and the transformation of Primary Care.

Reason, reality and objectivity--shared dogmas and distortions in the way both 'scientistic' and 'postmodern' commentators frame the EBM debate

Both defenders and certain critics of evidence-based medicine (EBM) share philosophical commitments - assumptions about the meaning of and relationship between such fundamental concepts as 'objectivity', 'subjectivity' and 'rationality'- that frame the debate between them. Critics need to be particularly careful in analysing their own philosophical commitments. Ironically, failure to do so has led some to ground their rejection of EBM in philosophical theses that are less clear and/or more contentious than the reasonable conclusions they wish to defend. There is no need to label 'objectivity' a 'myth' or 'scientific method' an 'illusion' in order to identify what is wrong in EBM. Such strategies play into the hands of EBM dogmatists, allowing them to continue to position themselves as the defenders of 'science' and 'reason'.

Towards an ethics of authentic practice

This essay asks how we might best elaborate an ethics of authentic practice. Will we be able to agree on a set of shared terms through which ethical practice will be understood? How will we define ethics and the subject's relation to authoritative structures of power and knowledge? We begin by further clarifying our critique of evidence-based medicine (EBM), reflecting on the intimate relation between theory and practice. We challenge the charge that our position amounts to no more than 'subjectivism' and 'antiauthoritarian' theory. We argue that an ethical practice ought to question the authority of EBM without falling into the trap of dogmatic antiauthoritarianism. In this, we take up the work of Hannah Arendt, who offers terms to help understand our difficult political relation to authority in an authentic ethical practice. We continue with a discussion of Michel Foucault's use of 'free speech' or parrhesia, which he adopts from Ancient Greek philosophy. Foucault demonstrates that authentic ethical practice demands that we 'speak truth to power.' We conclude with a consideration of recent biotechnologies, and suggest that these biomedical practices force us to re-evaluate our theoretical understanding of the ethical subject. We believe that we are at a crucial juncture: we must develop an ethics of authentic practice that will be commensurable with new and emergent biomedical subjectivities.

User-driven health care - answering multidimensional information needs in individual patients utilizing post-EBM approaches: a conceptual model

Evidence based on average patient data, which occupies most of our present day information databases, does not fulfil the needs of individual patient-centred health care. In spite of the unprecedented expansion in medical information we still do not have the types of information required to allow us to tailor optimal care for a given individual patient. As our current information is chiefly provided in disconnected silos, we need an information system that can seamlessly integrate different types of information to meet diverse user group needs. Groups of certain individual medical learners namely patients, medical students and health professionals share the patient's need to increasingly interact with and seek knowledge and solutions offered by others (individual medical learners) who have the lived experiences that they would benefit to access and learn from. A web-based user-driven learning solution may be a stepping-stone to address the present problem of information oversupply in medicine that mostly remains underutilized, as it doesn't meet the needs of the individual patient and health professional user. The key to its success would be to relax central control and make local trust and strategic health workers feel more engaged in the project such that it is truly user-driven.

Harnessing experience: exploring the gap between evidence-based medicine and clinical practice

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

There is mounting evidence of a gap between Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) and physician clinical practice, in part because EBM is averaged global evidence gathered from exogenous populations which may not be relevant to local circumstances. Local endogenous evidence, collected in particular and 'real world' patient populations may be more relevant, convincing and timely for clinical practice. Evidence Farming (EF) is a concept to provide such local evidence through the systematic collection of clinical experience to guide more effective practice.

METHODS

We report on the findings of a pilot study of 29 individual and three focus group (n = 10) interviews exploring physicians' evaluations how they use multiple sources of information in clinical decision making and their thoughts on EF.

RESULTS

Physicians recognize a gap in translating EBM to practice. Physicians reported that when making clinical decisions, they more often rely on clinical experience, the opinions of colleagues and EBM summarizing electronic clinical resources rather than refer directly to EBM literature. Confidence in making decisions based on clinical experience increases over time, yet few physicians reported having systems for tracking their clinical experience in designing treatment plans and patient outcomes. Most physicians saw EF as a promising way to track experience, thereby making scientific evidence more relevant to their own clinical practices.

CONCLUSION

Clinical experience is relatively neglected by the EBM movement, but if that experience were systematically gathered through an approach such as EF, it would meet a need left unfulfilled by EBM.

Evidence and the industrialization of medicine

Medicine is changing rapidly. In part, this is due to the accumulation of discoveries in biomedical science. However, this is not sufficient to explain the changes clinicians see. Whereas once medical advance concerned discoveries external to clinical practice (such as the identification of a causative microorganism or gene), medical practice itself is now a subject of study. What clinicians know, how they acquire knowledge, and how knowledge is distributed are all subjects of scrutiny. In short, medicine is being industrialized: we can see the twin changes of specialization, and the desire to codify practice such that those with different educational backgrounds can undertake a clinical role. Key to such change is the role played by evidence. Whereas once natural science was seen to determine clinical practice, this view is now known to be mistaken. How we can formally combine evidence from different traditions is, despite the claims of the evidence-based medicine movement, as yet unresolved.