Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice

Factors Contributing to Variations in Physicians' Use of Evidence at The Point of Care: A Conceptual Model

There is ample evidence that many clinical decisions made by physicians are inconsistent with current and generally accepted evidence. This leads to the underuse of some efficacious diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic services, and the overuse of others of marginal or no value to the patient. Evolving new payment and delivery models place greater emphasis on the provision of evidence-based services at the point of care. However, changing physician clinical behaviors is likely to be difficult and slow. Policy makers therefore need to design interventions that are most effective in promoting greater evidence-based care. To help identify modifiable factors that can influence clinical decisions at the point of care, we present a conceptual model and literature review of physician decision making. We describe the multitude of factors--drawn from different disciplines--that have been shown to influence physician point-of-care decisions. We present a conceptual framework for organizing these factors, dividing them into patient, physician, practice site, physician organization, network, market, and public policy influences. In doing so, we review some of the literature that speak to these factors. We then identify areas where additional research is especially needed, and discuss the challenges and opportunities for health services and policy researchers to gain a better understanding of these factors, particularly those that are potentially modifiable by policymakers and organizational leaders.

Introducing high-cost health care to patients: dentists' accounts of offering dental implant treatment

OBJECTIVES

The decision-making process within health care has been widely researched, with shared decision-making, where both patients and clinicians share technical and personal information, often being cited as the ideal model. To date, much of this research has focused on systems where patients receive their care and treatment free at the point of contact (either in government-funded schemes or in insurance-based schemes). Oral health care often involves patients making direct payments for their care and treatment, and less is known about how this payment affects the decision-making process. It is clear that patient characteristics influence decision-making, but previous evidence suggests that clinicians may assume characteristics rather than eliciting them directly. The aim was to explore the influences on how dentists' engaged in the decision-making process surrounding a high-cost item of health care, dental implant treatments (DITs).

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken using a purposive sample of primary care dentists (n = 25). Thematic analysis was undertaken to reveal emerging key themes.

RESULTS

There were differences in how dentists discussed and offered implants. Dentists made decisions about whether to offer implants based on business factors, professional and legal obligations and whether they perceived the patient to be motivated to have treatment and their ability to pay. There was evidence that assessment of these characteristics was often based on assumptions derived from elements such as the appearance of the patient, the state of the patient's mouth and demographic details. The data suggest that there is a conflict between three elements of acting as a healthcare professional: minimizing provision of unneeded treatment, trying to fully involve patients in shared decisions and acting as a business person with the potential for financial gain.

CONCLUSIONS

It might be expected that in the context of a high-cost healthcare intervention for which patients pay the bill themselves, that decision-making would be closer to an informed than a paternalistic model. Our research suggests that paternalistic decision-making is still practised and is influenced by assumptions about patient characteristics. Better tools and training may be required to support clinicians in this area of practice.

The dermatology outpatient discharge decision: understanding a critical but neglected process

Discharge from dermatology outpatients is a critical endpoint of patient care. Despite this, there has been very little research concerning the discharge process and factors influencing the discharge decision. To identify the factors influencing discharge decisions, articles from 1970 to April 2013 were searched in MEDLINE via Ovid, CINAHL, PROQUEST and Google Scholar using the keywords 'patient discharge', 'discharge decision', 'factors influencing discharge', 'clinical decision making', 'discharge decision making', 'process of discharge decision', 'outpatient', 'follow up', 'skin disease' and 'dermatology'. Only articles describing outpatient discharge decisions were included. Seventeen outpatient discharge articles were identified, 12 from the U.K. (seven dermatology) and five from the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Taiwan (all nondermatology). The main influences on outpatient discharge identified were diagnosis and disease severity, clinician's level of experience and perception, patient's preferences, patient's behaviour and quality of life. These influences affected the clinician's judgement on discharge decisions both in appropriate and in inappropriate ways. Little is known concerning discharge decision making in dermatology. Given the central importance of such decisions in the appropriate care of patients and the efficient running of any dermatology service, greater understanding of the influences on discharge decision making is needed. It is therefore critical for dermatologists to be aware of these influences and to ensure that decisions are taken only in the best interests of patients. Further research is required to inform the training of dermatologists on how to take the most appropriate discharge decisions.

Understanding clinicians' decisions to offer intravenous thrombolytic treatment to patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Intravenous thrombolysis is an effective emergency treatment for acute ischaemic stroke for patients meeting specific criteria. Approximately 12% of eligible patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland received thrombolysis in the first quarter of 2013, yet as many as 15% are eligible to receive treatment. Suboptimal use of thrombolysis may have been largely attributable to structural factors; however, with the widespread implementation of 24/7 hyper acute stroke services, continuing variation is likely to reflect differences in clinical decision-making, in particular the influence of ambiguous areas within the guidelines, licensing criteria and research evidence. Clinicians' perceptions about thrombolysis may now exert a greater influence on treatment rates than structural/service factors. This research seeks to elucidate factors influencing thrombolysis decision-making by using patient vignettes to identify (1) patient-related and clinician-related factors that may help to explain variation in treatment and (2) associated trade-offs in decision-making based on the interplay of critical factors.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) will be conducted to better understand how clinicians make decisions about whether or not to offer thrombolysis to patients with acute ischaemic stroke. To inform the design, exploratory work will be undertaken to ensure that (1) all potentially influential factors are considered for inclusion; and (2) to gain insights into the 'grey areas' of patient factors. A fractional factorial design will be used to combine levels of patient factors in vignettes, which will be presented to clinicians to allow estimation of the variable effects on decisions to offer thrombolysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Newcastle University Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated in peer review publications and at national conferences. Findings will be translated into continuing professional development activities and will support implementation of a computerised decision aid for thrombolysis (COMPASS) in acute stroke care.

Association between education in EOL care and variability in EOL practice: a survey of ICU physicians

PURPOSE

This study investigated the association between physician education in EOL and variability in EOL practice, as well as the differences between beliefs and practices regarding EOL in the ICU.

METHODS

Physicians from 11 ICUs at a university hospital completed a survey presenting a patient in a vegetative state with no family or advance directives. Questions addressed approaches to EOL care, as well physicians' personal, professional and EOL educational characteristics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 89%, with 105 questionnaires analyzed. Mean age was 38 ± 8 years, with a mean of 14 ± 7 years since graduation. Physicians who did not apply do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were less likely to have attended EOL classes than those who applied written DNR orders [0/7 vs. 31/47, OR = 0.549 (0.356-0.848), P = 0.001]. Physicians who involved nurses in the decision-making process were more likely to be ICU specialists [17/22 vs. 46/83, OR = 4.1959 (1.271-13.845), P = 0.013] than physicians who made such decisions among themselves or referred to ethical or judicial committees. Physicians who would apply "full code" had less often read about EOL [3/22 vs. 11/20, OR = 0.0939 (0.012-0.710), P = 0.012] and had less interest in discussing EOL [17/22 vs. 20/20, OR = 0.210 (0.122-0.361), P < 0.001], than physicians who would withdraw life-sustaining therapies. Forty-four percent of respondents would not do what they believed was best for their patient, with 98% of them believing a less aggressive attitude preferable. Legal concerns were the leading cause for this dichotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician education about EOL is associated with variability in EOL decisions in the ICU. Moreover, actual practice may differ from what physicians believe is best for the patient.

Health care for irregular migrants: pragmatism across Europe: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries.

RESULTS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n = 240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this.

CONCLUSIONS

The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.

The decisions regarding ADHD management (DRAMa) study: uncertainties and complexities in assessment, diagnosis and treatment, from the clinician's point of view

Clinical decision making is influenced by a range of factors and constitutes an inherently complex task. Here we present results from the decisions regarding ADHD management (DRAMa) study in which we undertook a thematic analysis of clinicians' experiences and attitudes to assessment, diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. Fifty prescribing child psychiatrists and paediatricians from Belgium and the UK took part in semi-structured interviews about their decisions regarding the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. Interviews were transcribed and processed using thematic analysis and the principles of grounded theory. Clinicians described the assessment and diagnostic process as inherently complicated and requiring time and experience to piece together the accounts of children made by multiple sources and through the use of varying information gathering techniques. Treatment decisions were viewed as a shared process between families, children, and the clinician. Published guidelines were viewed as vague, and few clinicians spoke about the use of symptom thresholds or specific impairment criteria. Furthermore, systematic or operationalised criteria to assess treatment outcomes were rarely used. Decision making in ADHD is regarded as a complicated, time consuming process which requires extensive use of clinical impression, and involves a partnership with parents. Clinicians want to separate biological from environmental causal factors to understand the level of impairment and the subsequent need for a diagnosis of ADHD. Clinical guidelines would benefit from revisions to take into account the real-world complexities of clinical decision making for ADHD.

Nonclinical influences, beyond diagnosis and severity, on clinical decision making in dermatology: understanding the gap between guidelines and practice

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision making in dermatology is a complex process and might be influenced by a wide range of nonclinical factors.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the role of nonclinical influences, beyond diagnosis and severity, on clinical decision making in dermatology.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 46 clinicians working in departments of dermatology of nine different hospitals in Wales. Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed and their contents analysed.

RESULTS

Nonclinical factors influencing patient management decisions in dermatology that were identified related to patients, clinicians and practice characteristics. Patient-related factors included place of residence, socioeconomic circumstances, education and intelligence, ethnicity, age, treatment adherence, expectations from treatment, quality of life, concerns and worries, difficult patients, and family members or friends. Clinician-related factors included time constraints in clinic, clinicians' personal circumstances, relationship with colleagues, and relationship with pharmaceutical companies. Practice-related factors included working in private practice, cost of treatment to the National Health Service (NHS), prescribing bureaucracy, and availability of treatment service in the work place. There was a difference between the consultants' views and those of the other clinicians over the impact of pharmaceutical companies on clinicians' prescribing and the awareness of treatment costs to the NHS. Most of the factors identified could potentially influence the clinicians' decision-making process subconsciously. Some clinicians highlighted that these factors are untaught in the medical curriculum, and are usually ignored in clinical guidelines, and therefore represent a challenge to the practice of evidence-based medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has described one aspect of the reality of medical decision making beyond the conventional evidence-based guidelines approach. Proper understanding of nonclinical influences on decision making is of paramount importance for the best patient-centred treatment outcomes.