Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Nurses’ use of research information in clinical decision making in primary care Carl Thompson; Dorothy McCaughan; Pauline Raynor; Nicky Cullum; Trevor Sheldon. Funder: Medical Research Council Clinical expertise Evidence from research Evidence Based Decision Patient preferences Available resources methods Subjects: health visitors, practice nurses, district nurses, nurse practitioners Mixed method, multi-site case study design, 3 geographical areas over one year (2001-2) In depth interviews (n=82) Observation data (270 hours) Q methodological statistical modelling (n=120) Local information resource audit (circa 1000 sources) Rigour: explicit purposive sampling frame; between method & subject triangulation; multi-rater Kappa for descriptive coding tasks Why information use in decision making context? Finite range of uncertainties (coming next…) Decision making is often ‘missing link’ in models of research utilisation Adding value to what we know Decisions affect the ways we think and the knowledge required Expertise is not enough WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT DECISION TASKS AND RESPONSES OF NURSES Cognitive continuum (cf. Hammond, Hamm, Dowie 1963-2002) ‘pure’ scientific experiment + good Task Structure System aided judgement Peer aided judgement Time, Visibility Of process intuition - poor intuition Analysis Decision space in the real world? Assume limited time Increasing need for visibility in decision making Task structure is vital to understanding the mechanism for inducing cognition Understand task structure – possibility of inducing ways of thinking and different kinds of knowledge use Other health information: smoker? Mobility? Medication?…etc Compliance? History: how and when ulcer started; current treatment; pain… etc Background information Leg exam: oedema, temperature; ankle and calf circumference… General medical condition: diabetic? RA; anaemic?… etc Doppler ABPI Ulcer: size, odour, slough, exudates? Investigations: urine, FBC, ESR, urea and electrolytes, blood glucose, swab (if appropriate) general condition: well? Pulse, BP, weight ARTICLES DAILY VISITS PHYSIOLOGY PATIENT INFORMATION PATIENT REJECTION OF EXPERTISE COLLEAGUE’S ‘EXPERIMENTS’ COST ROLE CONFLICT, GP WISHES REJECTION OF EXPERTISE CNS NEED FOR VISIBILITY IN DECISION SHARED DECISION MAKING VALUES SEEING IS BELIEVING AND EXPERIMENTATION WOUND FORMULARY COST DOWN TO WHAT I’VE USED OVER THE YEARS Stage 1: assessment ‘pure’ scientific experiment + good System aided judgement Task Structure Peer aided judgement Time, Visibility Of process intuition - poor intuition Analysis Stage 2: conflict ‘pure’ scientific experiment + good System aided judgement Task Structure Peer aided judgement Time, Visibility Of process intuition - poor intuition Analysis Stage 3: resolution ‘pure’ scientific experiment + good System aided judgement Task Structure Peer aided judgement Time, Visibility Of process intuition - poor intuition Analysis So what does all this mean? One size does not fit all and EB decision elements present in many decisions Structuring decisions moves people along the continuum (All things being equal), expertise AND decision knowledge a powerful combination Implications for future research Looking inside the ‘black box’ for given (and common) tasks Interventions