The influence of patient's age on clinical decision-making about coronary heart disease in the USA and the UK

This paper examines UK and US primary care doctors' decision-making about older (aged 75 years) and midlife (aged 55 years) patients presenting with coronary heart disease (CHD). Using an analytic approach based on conceptualising clinical decision-making as a classification process, it explores the ways in which doctors' cognitive processes contribute to ageism in health-care at three key decision points during consultations. In each country, 56 randomly selected doctors were shown videotaped vignettes of actors portraying patients with CHD. The patients' ages (55 or 75 years), gender, ethnicity and social class were varied systematically. During the interviews, doctors gave free-recall accounts of their decision-making. The results do not establish that there was substantial ageism in the doctors' decisions, but rather suggest that diagnostic processes pay insufficient attention to the significance of older patients' age and its association with the likelihood of co-morbidity and atypical disease presentations. The doctors also demonstrated more limited use of 'knowledge structures' when diagnosing older than midlife patients. With respect to interventions, differences in the national health-care systems rather than patients' age accounted for the differences in doctors' decisions. US doctors were significantly more concerned about the potential for adverse outcomes if important diagnoses were untreated, while UK general practitioners cited greater difficulty in accessing diagnostic tests.

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.

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.

Psychological cue use and implications for a clinical decision support system

Effective clinical decision making depends upon identifying possible outcomes for a patient, selecting relevant cues, and processing the cues to arrive at accurate judgements of each outcome's probability of occurrence. These activities can be considered as classification tasks. This paper describes a new model of psychological classification that explains how people use cues to determine class or outcome likelihoods. It proposes that clinicians respond to conditional probabilities of outcomes given cues and that these probabilities compete with each other for influence on classification. The model explains why people appear to respond to base rates inappropriately, thereby overestimating the occurrence of rare categories, and a clinical example is provided for predicting suicide risk. The model makes an effective representation for expert clinical judgements and its psychological validity enables it to generate explanations in a form that is comprehensible to clinicians. It is a strong candidate for incorporation within a decision support system for mental-health risk assessment, where it can link with statistical and pattern recognition tools applied to a database of patients. The symbiotic combination of empirical evidence and clinical expertise can provide an important web-based resource for risk assessment, including multi-disciplinary education and training. © 2002 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved.

Investigating the influence of African American and African Caribbean race on primary care doctors' decision making about depression

This paper explores differences in how primary care doctors process the clinical presentation of depression by African American and African-Caribbean patients compared with white patients in the US and the UK. The aim is to gain a better understanding of possible pathways by which racial disparities arise in depression care. One hundred and eight doctors described their thought processes after viewing video recorded simulated patients presenting with identical symptoms strongly suggestive of depression. These descriptions were analysed using the CliniClass system, which captures information about micro-components of clinical decision making and permits a systematic, structured and detailed analysis of how doctors arrive at diagnostic, intervention and management decisions. Video recordings of actors portraying black (both African American and African-Caribbean) and white (both White American and White British) male and female patients (aged 55 years and 75 years) were presented to doctors randomly selected from the Massachusetts Medical Society list and from Surrey/South West London and West Midlands National Health Service lists, stratified by country (US v.UK), gender, and years of clinical experience (less v. very experienced). Findings demonstrated little evidence of bias affecting doctors' decision making processes, with the exception of less attention being paid to the potential outcomes associated with different treatment options for African American compared with White American patients in the US. Instead, findings suggest greater clinical uncertainty in diagnosing depression amongst black compared with white patients, particularly in the UK. This was evident in more potential diagnoses. There was also a tendency for doctors in both countries to focus more on black patients' physical rather than psychological symptoms and to identify endocrine problems, most often diabetes, as a presenting complaint for them. This suggests that doctors in both countries have a less well developed mental model of depression for black compared with white patients. © 2014 The Authors.

A concept-based framework for retrieving evidence to support emergency physician decision making at the point of care

The goal of evidence-based medicine is to uniformly apply evidence gained from scientific research to aspects of clinical practice. In order to achieve this goal, new applications that integrate increasingly disparate health care information resources are required. Access to and provision of evidence must be seamlessly integrated with existing clinical workflow and evidence should be made available where it is most often required - at the point of care. In this paper we address these requirements and outline a concept-based framework that captures the context of a current patient-physician encounter by combining disease and patient-specific information into a logical query mechanism for retrieving relevant evidence from the Cochrane Library. Returned documents are organized by automatically extracting concepts from the evidence-based query to create meaningful clusters of documents which are presented in a manner appropriate for point of care support. The framework is currently being implemented as a prototype software agent that operates within the larger context of a multi-agent application for supporting workflow management of emergency pediatric asthma exacerbations. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.