Genetic characterization of clinical isolates of Clostridium difficile using an optimized RAPD protocol and PCR ribotyping reveals strain diversity between two tertiary referral Trusts in the West Midlands, UK

Epidemiological investigations of Clostridium difficile often focus on differences between separate geographical areas. In this investigation, two populations of C. difficile recovered from separate tertiary referral Trusts within the West Midlands, UK, were characterized using both PCR ribotyping and an optimized RAPD (random amplification of polymorphic DNA) protocol. The PCR ribotyping and RAPD methodologies identified differences between the two C. difficile populations, in both the prevalence and the diversity of types identified. The use of PCR ribotyping in conjunction with RAPD further categorized different types within defined PCR ribotypes, identifying different types within the same PCR ribotype and therefore providing a greater discriminatory power than either of the methods when used alone. The differences observed in this study between the two Trusts in the distribution of both RAPD 'type' and PCR ribotype demonstrate the diversity that is present amongst isolates of C. difficile within a relatively small geographical area and warrants a need for further investigation into the local epidemiology of C. difficile.

Classifying clinical decision making:interpreting nursing intuition, heuristics and medical diagnosis

This is the second of two linked papers exploring decision making in nursing. The first paper, 'Classifying clinical decision making: a unifying approach' investigated difficulties with applying a range of decision-making theories to nursing practice. This is due to the diversity of terminology and theoretical concepts used, which militate against nurses being able to compare the outcomes of decisions analysed within different frameworks. It is therefore problematic for nurses to assess how good their decisions are, and where improvements can be made. However, despite the range of nomenclature, it was argued that there are underlying similarities between all theories of decision processes and that these should be exposed through integration within a single explanatory framework. A proposed solution was to use a general model of psychological classification to clarify and compare terms, concepts and processes identified across the different theories. The unifying framework of classification was described and this paper operationalizes it to demonstrate how different approaches to clinical decision making can be re-interpreted as classification behaviour. Particular attention is focused on classification in nursing, and on re-evaluating heuristic reasoning, which has been particularly prone to theoretical and terminological confusion. Demonstrating similarities in how different disciplines make decisions should promote improved multidisciplinary collaboration and a weakening of clinical elitism, thereby enhancing organizational effectiveness in health care and nurses' professional status. This is particularly important as nurses' roles continue to expand to embrace elements of managerial, medical and therapeutic work. Analysing nurses' decisions as classification behaviour will also enhance clinical effectiveness, and assist in making nurses' expertise more visible. In addition, the classification framework explodes the myth that intuition, traditionally associated with nurses' decision making, is less rational and scientific than other approaches.

Classifying clinical decision making:a unifying approach

This is the first of two linked papers exploring decision making in nursing which integrate research evidence from different clinical and academic disciplines. Currently there are many decision-making theories, each with their own distinctive concepts and terminology, and there is a tendency for separate disciplines to view their own decision-making processes as unique. Identifying good nursing decisions and where improvements can be made is therefore problematic, and this can undermine clinical and organizational effectiveness, as well as nurses' professional status. Within the unifying framework of psychological classification, the overall aim of the two papers is to clarify and compare terms, concepts and processes identified in a diversity of decision-making theories, and to demonstrate their underlying similarities. It is argued that the range of explanations used across disciplines can usefully be re-conceptualized as classification behaviour. This paper explores problems arising from multiple theories of decision making being applied to separate clinical disciplines. Attention is given to detrimental effects on nursing practice within the context of multidisciplinary health-care organizations and the changing role of nurses. The different theories are outlined and difficulties in applying them to nursing decisions highlighted. An alternative approach based on a general model of classification is then presented in detail to introduce its terminology and the unifying framework for interpreting all types of decisions. The classification model is used to provide the context for relating alternative philosophical approaches and to define decision-making activities common to all clinical domains. This may benefit nurses by improving multidisciplinary collaboration and weakening clinical elitism.