scholarly journals Alcohol Use Disorder in a Culture That Normalizes the Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages: The Conflicts for Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
pp. 163-170
Author(s):  
Guilherme Messas ◽  
Maria Julia Soares
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Alcohol Use Disorder ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Alcoholic Beverages ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Brazilian Culture ◽  
The Impact

AbstractValue-Based Practice (VBP) allows individual and cultural values to be important elements in clinical decision-making. The following chapter exemplifies the application of this approach to a patient with an alcohol use disorder within the Brazilian culture, a culture that minimizes the impact of alcohol consumption on health. By applying principles such as shared decision-making and basing choices on evidence and values, the patient increased the adherence and, consequently, the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

AAC Assessment and Clinical-Decision Making: The Impact of Experience

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee Dietz ◽  
Wendy Quach ◽  
Shelley K. Lund ◽  
Miechelle McKelvey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Impact

Standardized Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reports — So What and Who Cares?: A Population-Based Satisfaction Survey of 970 Pathologists, Surgeons, and Oncologists

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (11) ◽  
pp. 1599-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lankshear ◽  
John Srigley ◽  
Thomas McGowan ◽  
Marta Yurcan ◽  
Carol Sawka
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cancer Pathology ◽  
Report Turnaround Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pathology Reporting ◽  
The Impact

Context.—Cancer Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time. Objective.—To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process. Design.—A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments. Results.—A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r = 0.750, P < .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r = 0.663, P < .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t169 = 3.044, P = .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion. Conclusion.—This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing a medical mobile phone app (QUiPP V2) designed to predict the risk of preterm birth and aid clinical decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Carlisle ◽  
H. A. Watson ◽  
J. Carter ◽  
K. Kuhrt ◽  
P. T. Seed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background As the vast majority of women who present in threatened preterm labour (TPTL) will not deliver early, clinicians need to balance the risks of over-medicalising the majority of women, against the potential risk of preterm delivery for those discharged home. The QUiPP app is a free, validated app which can support clinical decision-making as it produces individualised risks of delivery within relevant timeframes. Recent evidence has highlighted that clinicians would welcome a decision-support tool that accurately predicts preterm birth. Methods Qualitative interviews were undertaken as part of the EQUIPTT study (The Evaluation of the QUiPP app for Triage and Transfer) (REC: 17/LO/1802) which aimed to evaluate the impact of the QUiPP app on management of TPTL. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were used to explore clinicians’ (obstetricians’ and midwives’) experiences of using the QUiPP app and how it was implemented at their hospital sites. Thematic analysis was chosen to explore the meaning of the data, through a framework approach. Results Nineteen participants from 10 hospital sites in England took part. Data analysis revealed three overarching themes which were: ‘experience of using the app’, ‘how QUiPP risk changes practice’ and ‘successfully adopting QUiPP: context is everything’. With these final themes we appeared to have achieved our aim of exploring the clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing the QUiPP app. Conclusion This study explored different clinician’s experiences of implementing the app. The organizational and cultural context at different sites appeared to have a large impact on how well the QUiPP app was implemented. Future work needs to be undertaken to understand how best to embed the intervention within different settings. This will inform scale up of QUiPP app use across the UK and ensure that clinicians have access to this free, easy-to-use tool which can positively aid clinical decision making when caring for women in TPTL. Clinical trial registry and registration number ISRCTN 17846337, registered 08th January 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17846337.

scholarly journals Exploring the role of the Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) in clinical decision-making: a realist evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scott ◽  
Elisavet Andrikopoulou ◽  
Haythem Nakkas ◽  
Paul Roderick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Health Information Exchange ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

Background: The overall evidence for the impact of electronic information systems on cost, quality and safety of healthcare remains contested. Whilst it seems intuitively obvious that having more data about a patient will improve care, the mechanisms by which information availability is translated into better decision-making are not well understood. Furthermore, there is the risk of data overload creating a negative outcome. There are situations where a key information summary can be more useful than a rich record. The Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) is a shared electronic health record for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that combines key information from hospital, general practice, community care and social services. Its purpose is to provide clinical and care professionals with complete, accurate and up-to-date information when caring for patients. CHIE is used by GP out-of-hours services, acute hospital doctors, ambulance service, GPs and others in caring for patients. Research questions: The fundamental question was How does awareness of CHIE or usage of CHIE affect clinical decision-making? The secondary questions were What are the latent benefits of CHIE in frontline NHS operations? and What is the potential of CHIE to have an impact on major NHS cost pressures? The NHS funders decided to focus on acute medical inpatient admissions as the initial scope, given the high costs associated with hospital stays and the patient complexities (and therefore information requirements) often associated with unscheduled admissions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to explore their experience about the utility of CHIE in their clinical scenario, whether and how it has affected their decision-making practices and the barriers and facilitators for their use of CHIE. The Framework Method was used for qualitative analysis, supported by the software tool Atlas.ti. Results: 21 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three main functions were identified as useful: extensive medication prescribing history, information sharing between primary, secondary and social care and access to laboratory test results. We inferred two positive cognitive mechanisms: knowledge confidence and collaboration assurance, and three negative ones: consent anxiety, search anxiety and data mistrust. Conclusions: CHIE gives clinicians the bigger picture to understand the patient's health and social care history and circumstances so as to make confident and informed decisions. CHIE is very beneficial for medicines reconciliation on admission, especially for patients that are unable to speak or act for themselves or who cannot remember their precise medication or allergies. We found no clear evidence that CHIE has a significant impact on admission or discharge decisions. We propose the use of recommender systems to help clinicians navigate such large volumes of patient data, which will only grow as additional data is collected.

scholarly journals QOLP-03. MEASURING CHANGE IN HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: THE ADDED VALUE OF ANALYSIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT LEVEL IN GLIOMA PATIENTS IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi197-vi198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Coomans ◽  
Martin Taphoorn ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to study whether different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL result in different interpretations. Methods: HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed: (1)at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2)at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3)at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. Results: Data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p< .001, range in change score:0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range:27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range:6–43%) or improved (range:8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Conclusion: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

scholarly journals Impact of 123I-MIBG Scintigraphy on Clinical Decision-Making in Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (9) ◽  
pp. 3812-3820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dipti Rao ◽  
Anouk van Berkel ◽  
Ianthe Piscaer ◽  
William F Young ◽  
Lucinda Gruber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mibg Scintigraphy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Context Cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI is regarded as a first-choice modality for tumor localization in patients with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). 123I-labeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) is widely used for functional imaging but the added diagnostic value is controversial. Objective To establish the virtual impact of adding 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT or MRI on diagnosis and treatment of PPGL. Design International multicenter retrospective study. Intervention None. Patients Two hundred thirty-six unilateral adrenal, 18 bilateral adrenal, 48 unifocal extra-adrenal, 12 multifocal, and 26 metastatic PPGL. Main Outcome Measures Patients underwent both anatomical imaging (CT and/or MRI) and 123I-MIBG scintigraphy. Local imaging reports were analyzed centrally by two independent observers who were blinded to the diagnosis. Imaging-based diagnoses determined by CT/MRI only, 123I-MIBG only, and CT/MRI combined with 123I-MIBG scintigraphy were compared with the correct diagnoses. Results The rates of correct imaging-based diagnoses determined by CT/MRI only versus CT/MRI plus 123I-MIBG scintigraphy were similar: 89.4 versus 88.8%, respectively (P = 0.50). Adding 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT/MRI resulted in a correct change in the imaging-based diagnosis and ensuing virtual treatment in four cases (1.2%: two metastatic instead of nonmetastatic, one multifocal instead of single, one unilateral instead of bilateral adrenal) at the cost of an incorrect change in seven cases (2.1%: four metastatic instead of nonmetastatic, two multifocal instead of unifocal and one bilateral instead of unilateral adrenal). Conclusions For the initial localization of PPGL, the addition of 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT/MRI rarely improves the diagnostic accuracy at the cost of incorrect interpretation in others, even when 123I-MIBG scintigraphy is restricted to patients who are at risk for metastatic disease. In this setting, the impact of 123I-MIBG scintigraphy on clinical decision-making appears very limited.

scholarly journals Quantifying the Impact of Patient-Specific Factors and Disease Severity on Clinical Decision Making in Cuff Tear Arthropathy: A Case-Based Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-285
Author(s):  
Adam P. Schumaier ◽  
Yehia H. Bedeir ◽  
Joshua S. Dines ◽  
Keith Kenter ◽  
Lawrence V. Gulotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Cuff Tear Arthropathy ◽  
Cuff Tear ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Case Based

Patient- and Clinician-Rated Outcome Measures for Clinical Decision Making in Rehabilitation

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori A. Michener
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Program Development ◽  
Treatment Program ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Outcomes Of Care ◽  
Injury Patient ◽  
The Impact

Outcome measures can be classified as clinician rated and patient rated. Clinician-rated measures predominantly assess impairments, whereas patient-rated measures, also known as patient-based measures, are designed to evaluate the impact of the injury on a patient’s daily activities, work, and recreation. Currently, there is a greater reliance on clinician-rated impairment measures for clinical decision making, specifically with treatment planning and assessing outcomes of care. To comprehensively evaluate the effect of an injury, patient-rated outcome measures must be used because they allow for the assessment of a patient’s ability to perform daily activities and participate in work and recreation that is affected by an injury. Clinician-rated impairment measures should be used to guide the development of a treatment program, and patient-rated measures should be used for both treatment-program development and assessing treatment outcomes in daily clinical practice. The purposes of this article are to describe patient- and clinician-rated outcome measures and to provide guidance and illustrate the benefits of the use of these measures in clinical decision making and documenting outcomes of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document