Explicit argumentation as a supervisory tool for decision making in child protection cases involving human rights issues

This paper addresses the problems often faced by social workers and their supervisors in decision making where human rights considerations and child protection concerns collide. High profile court cases in the United Kingdom and Europe have consistently called for social workers to convey more clarity when justifying their reasons for interfering with human rights in child protection cases. The themes emerging from these case law decisions imply that social workers need to be better at giving reasons and evidence in more explicit ways to support any actions they propose which cause interference with Convention Rights. Toulmin (1958, 1985) offers a structured approach to argumentation which may have relevance to the supervision of child protection cases when social workers and managers are required to balance these human rights considerations. One of the key challenges in this balancing act is the need for decision makers to feel confident that any interventions resulting in the interference of human rights are both justified and proportionate. Toulmin’s work has already been shown to have relevance for assisting social workers navigate pathways through cases involving competing ethical and moral demands (Osmo and Landau, 2001) and more recently to human rights and decision making in child protection (Duffy et al, 2006). Toulmin’s model takes the practitioner through a series of stages where any argument or proposed recommendation (claim) is subjected to intense critical analysis involving exposition of its strengths and weaknesses. The author therefore proposes that explicit argumentation (Osmo and Landau, 2001) may help supervisors and practitioners towards safer and more confident decision making in child protection cases involving the interference of the human rights of children and parents. In addition to highlighting the broader context of human rights currently permeating child protection decision making, the paper will include case material to practically demonstrate the application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation to the supervision context. In this way the paper adopts a strong practice approach in helping to assist practitioners with the problems and dilemmas they may come up against in decision making in complex cases.

The influence of evidence-based medicine training on decision-making in relation to over-the-counter medicines: a qualitative study

Objectives
To explore the role of evidence of effectiveness when making decisions about over-the-counter (OTC) medication and to ascertain whether evidence-based medicine training raised awareness in decision-making. Additionally, this work aimed to complement the findings of a previous study because all participants in this current study had received training in evidence-based medicine (unlike the previous participants).

Methods
Following ethical approval and an e-mailed invitation, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with newly registered pharmacists (who had received training in evidence-based medicine as part of their MPharm degree) to discuss the role of evidence of effectiveness with OTC medicines. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, all data were entered into the NVivo software package (version 8). Data were coded and analysed using a constant comparison approach.

Key findings
Twenty-five pharmacists (7 males and 18 females; registered for less than 4 months) were recruited and all participated in the study. Their primary focus with OTC medicines was safety; sales of products (including those that lack evidence of effectiveness) were justified provided they did no harm. Meeting patient expectation was also an important consideration and often superseded evidence. Despite knowledge of the concept, and an awareness of ethical requirements, an evidence-based approach was not routinely implemented by these pharmacists. Pharmacists did not routinely utilize evidence-based resources when making decisions about OTC medicines and some felt uncomfortable discussing the evidence-base for OTC products with patients.

Conclusions
The evidence-based medicine training that these pharmacists received appeared to have limited influence on OTC decision-making. More work could be conducted to ensure that an evidence-based approach is routinely implemented in practice

Rapid tryptophan depletion improves decision-making cognition in healthy humans without affecting reversal learning or set shifting

Rapid tryptophan (Trp) depletion (RTD) has been reported to cause deterioration in the quality of decision making and impaired reversal learning, while leaving attentional set shifting relatively unimpaired. These findings have been attributed to a more powerful neuromodulatory effect of reduced 5-HT on ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) than on dorsolateral PFC. In view of the limited number of reports, the aim of this study was to independently replicate these findings using the same test paradigms. Healthy human subjects without a personal or family history of affective disorder were assessed using a computerized decision making/gambling task and the CANTAB ID/ED attentional set-shifting task under Trp-depleted (n=17; nine males and eight females) or control (n=15; seven males and eight females) conditions, in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. There was no significant effect of RTD on set shifting, reversal learning, risk taking, impulsivity, or subjective mood. However, RTD significantly altered decision making such that depleted subjects chose the more likely of two possible outcomes significantly more often than controls. This is in direct contrast to the previous report that subjects chose the more likely outcome significantly less often following RTD. In the terminology of that report, our result may be interpreted as improvement in the quality of decision making following RTD. This contrast between studies highlights the variability in the cognitive effects of RTD between apparently similar groups of healthy subjects, and suggests the need for future RTD studies to control for a range of personality, family history, and genetic factors that may be associated with 5-HT function.

Decision making in childhood asthma exacerbation – a clinical judgement analysis

Background: Clinical decisions which impact directly on patient safety and quality of care are made during acute asthma attacks by individual doctors on the basis of their knowledge and experience. These include administration of systemic corticosteroids (CS), oral antibiotics, and admission to hospital. Clinical judgement analysis provides a methodology for comparing decisions between practitioners with different training and experience, and improving decision making. Methods: Stepwise linear regression was used to select clinical cues based on visual analogue scale assessments of the propensity of 62 clinicians to prescribe a short course of oral CS (decision 1), a course of antibiotics (decision 2), and/or admit to hospital (decision 3) for 60 â??paperâ?? patients. Results:When compared by specialty, paediatriciansâ?? models for decision 1 were more likely to include as a cue level of alertness (54% v. 16%); for decision 2 presence of crepitations (49% v. 16%), and less likely to include inhaled CS (8% v. 40%), respiratory rate (0% v. 24%), and air entry (70% v. 100%). When compared to other grades, the models derived for decision 3 by consultants/general practitioners were more likely to include wheeze severity as a cue (39% v. 6%). Conclusions: Clinicians differed in their use of individual cues and the number included in their models. Patient safety and quality of care will benefit from clarification of decision making strategies as general learning points during medical training, in the development of guidelines and care pathways, and by clinicians developing self-awareness of their own preferences.