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.

Study of management decision making by ward sisters in a hospital and the effects on decision making after the implementation of a decision support sytem

This thesis considers management decision making at the ward level in hospitals especially by ward sisters, and the effectiveness of the intervention of a decision support system. Nursing practice theories were related to organisation and management theories in order to conceptualise a decision making framework for nurse manpower planning and deployment at the ward level. Decision and systems theories were explored to understand the concepts of decision making and the realities of power in an organisation. In essence, the hypothesis was concerned with changes in patterns of decision making that could occur with the intervention of a decision support system and that the degree of change would be governed by a set of `difficulty' factors within wards in a hospital. During the course of the study, a classification of ward management decision making was created, together with the development and validation of measuring instruments to test the research hypothesis. The decision support system used was rigorously evaluated to test whether benefits did accrue from its implementation. Quantitative results from sample wards together with qualitative information collected, were used to test this hypothesis and the outcomes postulated were supported by these findings. The main conclusion from this research is that a more rational approach to management decision making is feasible, using information from a decision support system. However, wards and ward sisters that need the most assistance, where the `difficulty' factors in the organisation are highest, benefit the least from this type of system. Organisational reviews are needed on these identified wards, involving managers and doctors, to reduce the levels of un-coordinated activities and disruption.

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.

Good practice guide in learning and teaching

Once again this publication is produced to celebrate and promote good teaching and learning support and to offer encouragement to those imaginative and innovative staff who continue to wish to challenge students to learn to maximum effect. It is hoped that others will pick up some good ideas from the articles contained in this volume. We had changed our editorial approach in drawing together the articles for this 2005/6 edition (our third) of the ABS Good Practice Guide. Firstly we have expanded our contributors beyond ABS academics. This year?s articles have also been written by staff from other areas of the University, a PhD student, a post-doctoral researcher and staff working in learning support. We see this as an acknowledgement that the learning environment involves a range of people in the process of student support. We have also expanded the maximum length of the articles from two to five pages, in order to allow greater reflection on the issues. The themes of the papers cluster around issues relating to diversity (widening participation and internationalisation of the student body), imaginative use of new technology (electronic reading on BlackboardTM ) and reflective practitioners, (reflection on rigour and relevance; on how best to train students in research ethics, relevance in the curriculum and the creativity of the teaching process) Discussion of efforts to train the HE teachers of the future looks forward to the next academic year when the Higher Education Academy?s professional standards will be introduced across the sector. In the last volume we mentioned the launch of the School?s Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management (HELM). Since then HELM has stimulated a lot of activity across the School (and University) particularly linking research and teaching. A list of the HELM seminars is listed as an appendix to this publication. Further details can be obtained from Catherine Foster (c.s.foster@aston.ac.uk) who coordinates the HELM seminars. HELM has also won its first independent grant from the EU Leonardo programme to look at the effect of business education on employment. In its annual report to the ABS Research Committee HELM listed for 2004 and 2005, 11 refereed journal articles, 4 book chapters, 3 published conference papers, 18 conference papers, one official reports and £72,500 of grant money produced in this research area across the School. I hope that this shows that reflection on learning is live and well in ABS. May I thank the contributors for taking time out of their busy schedules to write the articles and to Julie Green, the Quality Manager, for putting our diverse approaches into a coherent and publishable form.

What is the current practice of medicines reconciliation in children nationally in the UK?

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/National Patient Safety Agency (NICE/NPSA) guidelines for medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission to hospital in adult inpatients were introduced in 2007, but they excluded children less than 16 years of age. METHOD: We conducted a survey of 98 paediatric pharmacists (each from a different hospital) to find out what the current practice of MR in children is in the UK. KEY FINDINGS: Responses showed that 67% (43/64) of pharmacists surveyed carried out MR in all children at admission and only a third 34% (22/64) had policies for MR in children. Of the respondents who did not carry out MR in all children, 80% (4/5) responded that they did so in selected children. Pharmacists considered themselves the most appropriate profession for carrying out MR. When asked whether the NICE guidance should be expanded to include children, 98% (54/55) of the respondents answered 'yes'. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the findings suggest that MR is being conducted inconsistently in children and most paediatric pharmacists would like national guidance to be expanded to include children.