Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed traditional in-person care into a new reality of virtual care for patients with complex chronic disease (CCD), but how has this transformation impacted clinical judgement? I argue that virtual specialist-patient interaction challenges clinical reasoning and clinical judgement (clinical reasoning combined with statistical reasoning). However, clinical reasoning can improve by recognising the abductive, deductive, and inductive methods that the clinician employs. Abductive reasoning leading to an inference to the best explanation or invention of an explanatory hypothesis is the default response to unfamiliar or confusing situations. ⋯ Clinical judgement in virtual encounters especially calls for Gestalt cognition to assess a situational pattern irreducible to its parts and independent of its particulars, so that efficient data interpretation and self-reflection are enabled. Gestalt cognition integrates abduction, deduction, and induction, appropriately divides the time and effort spent on each, and can compensate for reduced available information. Evaluating one's clinical judgement for those components especially vulnerable to compromise can help optimize the delivery of virtual care for patients with CCD.
-
In today's culture of the medical profession, it is fairly unusual for students to actually witness physicians talking with patients about anything outside scientific explanation. That other side of medicine - the one that goes beyond explanation to understanding - goes unexplored, and the patient's personal narrative is consequently less understood. Meanwhile, though reflective writing is the most frequently used didactic method to promote introspection and deeper consolidation of new ideas for medical learners, there is robust evidence that other art forms - such as storytelling, dance, theatre, literature and the visual arts - can also help deepen reflection and understanding of the human aspect of medical practice. ⋯ BEAM is envisioned as a modular, online resource of "third things" that any clinician anywhere will be able to access via a smartphone application to deliver brief, focused, humanistic clinical teaching in either hospital or ambulatory care settings. This commentary foregrounds a learner's perspective to model BEAM's usage in an in-depth manner; it examines the relation of a painting by Edward Hopper to medical education through the lens of a poem by Victoria Chang, in the context of the BEAM web-based app educational resource. By assessing the poignancy of the painting via the poem, I demonstrate the capacity of the arts and humanities in medical education, with a specific focus on the development of interpretative skills and tolerance for ambiguity that all authentic, engaged physicians need.
-
Review
The transition from inquiry to evidence to actionable clinical knowledge: A proposed roadmap.
We consider the question "What should we do?" in the context of clinical research/practice. There are several steps along the way to providing a satisfactory answer, many of which have received considerable attention in the literature. We aim to provide a unified summary and explication of these "steps along the way". The result will be an increased appreciation for the meaning and structure of "actionable clinical knowledge". ⋯ Clinical decision-making is not infallible, and the steps we can take to minimize error are context dependent. Medical evidence, produced as it is by human effort, can never be perfect. We will be doing well by assuring that the evidence we use has been produced by a reliable process and is relevant to the question posed.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Distinctive aspects of consent in pilot and feasibility studies.
Prior to a main randomized clinical trial, investigators often carry out a pilot or feasibility study in order to test certain trial processes or estimate key statistical parameters, so as to optimize the design of the main trial and/or determine whether it can feasibly be run. Pilot studies reflect the design of the intended main trial, whereas feasibility studies may not do so, and may not involve allocation to different treatments. Testing relative clinical effectiveness is not considered an appropriate aim of pilot or feasibility studies. ⋯ Equipoise may also be particularly challenging to grasp in the context of a pilot study. The consent process in pilot and feasibility studies requires a particular focus, and careful communication, if it is to carry the appropriate moral weight. There are corresponding implications for the process of ethical approval.