scholarly journals The difference between a clinical technician and clinical practitioner is in the scope of practice: the need for a bioscience understanding in paramedicine

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 541-545
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Rathner ◽  
Christine Kettle
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Allied Health ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Complex Case ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Anatomy And Physiology ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
The Difference

“Only teach me what I need to know!” This commonly heard refrain is often spoken by allied health students while studying preclinical sciences (physiology, anatomy, pharmacology). Here we use a clinical scenario undertaken by second-year Bachelor of Paramedic Practice students of acute coronary syndrome to demonstrate the difference in clinical decision making when using a clinical reasoning approach to treatment rather than relying exclusively on a practice guidelines approach. We hope to demonstrate that understanding basic bioscience concepts, such as the Frank-Starling mechanism and the anatomy and physiology of the autonomic nervous system, are key to providing good clinical care in response to ambiguous patient symptoms. Students who understand these concepts underlying their patient care guideline will make better clinical decisions and better provide quality of care than students who follow the guideline exclusively. We aim this as a practical demonstration of the value of detailed understanding of human bioscience in allied health education. As health care providers transition from “technician” to “practitioner,” the key distinguishing feature of the role is the ability to practice independently, using “best judgment” rather than clinical guidelines (alone). Evidence suggests that complex case management requires detailed bioscience understanding.

Risks of Cardiovascular Disease and Beyond in Prescription of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manas A. Rane ◽  
Alexander Gitin ◽  
Benjamin Fiedler ◽  
Lawrence Fiedler ◽  
Charles H. Hennekens
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Relieve Pain ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Introduction: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) include aspirin, naproxen, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, as well as selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors such as celecoxib. Their use is common, as well as their side effects which cause 100 000 hospitalizations and 17 000 deaths annually. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration strengthened its warning about the risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD) attributed to nonaspirin NSAIDs. Methods: When the sample size is large, randomization provides control of confounding not possible to achieve with any observational study. Further, observational studies and, especially, claims data have inherent confounding by indication larger than the small to moderate effects being sought. Results: While trials are necessary, they must be of sufficient size and duration and achieve high compliance and follow-up. Until then, clinicians should remain uncertain about benefits and risks of these drugs. Conclusions: Since the totality of evidence remains incomplete, health-care providers should consider all these aforementioned benefits and risks, both CVD and beyond, in deciding whether and, if so, which, NSAID to prescribe. The factors in the decision of whether and, if so, which NSAID to prescribe for relief of pain from inflammatory arthritis should not be limited to risks of CVD or gastrointestinal side effects but should also include potential benefits including improvements in overall quality of life resulting from decreases in pain or impairment from musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The judicious individual clinical decision-making about the prescription of NSAIDs to relieve pain based on all these considerations has the potential to do much more good than harm.

Consent, Refusal, and Waivers in Patient-Centered Dysphagia Care: Using Law, Ethics, and Evidence to Guide Clinical Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Horner ◽  
Maria Modayil ◽  
Laura Roche Chapman ◽  
An Dinh
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Legal Advice ◽  
Medical Context

PurposeWhen patients refuse medical or rehabilitation procedures, waivers of liability have been used to bar future lawsuits. The purpose of this tutorial is to review the myriad issues surrounding consent, refusal, and waivers. The larger goal is to invigorate clinical practice by providing clinicians with knowledge of ethics and law. This tutorial is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.MethodThe authors use a hypothetical case of a “noncompliant” individual under the care of an interdisciplinary neurorehabilitation team to illuminate the ethical and legal features of the patient–practitioner relationship; the elements of clinical decision-making capacity; the duty of disclosure and the right of informed consent or informed refusal; and the relationship among noncompliance, defensive practices, and iatrogenic harm. We explore the legal question of whether waivers of liability in the medical context are enforceable or unenforceable as a matter of public policy.ConclusionsSpeech-language pathologists, among other health care providers, have fiduciary and other ethical and legal obligations to patients. Because waivers try to shift liability for substandard care from health care providers to patients, courts usually find waivers of liability in the medical context unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of Health Wearables Data: Participatory Workshop on Barriers, Solutions, and Expectations (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robab Abdolkhani ◽  
Kathleen Gray ◽  
Ann Borda ◽  
Ruth DeSouza
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Participatory Design ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Interactive Methods ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Practices

BACKGROUND The ubiquity of health wearables and the consequent production of patient-generated health data (PGHD) are rapidly escalating. However, the utilization of PGHD in routine clinical practices is still low because of data quality issues. There is no agreed approach to PGHD quality assurance; therefore, realizing the promise of PGHD requires in-depth discussion among diverse stakeholders to identify the data quality assurance challenges they face and understand their needs for PGHD quality assurance. OBJECTIVE This paper reports findings from a workshop aimed to explore stakeholders’ data quality challenges, identify their needs and expectations, and offer practical solutions. METHODS A qualitative multi-stakeholder workshop was conducted as a half-day event on the campus of an Australian University located in a major health care precinct, namely the Melbourne Parkville Precinct. The 18 participants had experience of PGHD use in clinical care, including people who identified as health care consumers, clinical care providers, wearables suppliers, and health information specialists. Data collection was done by facilitators capturing written notes of the proceedings as attendees engaged in participatory design activities in written and oral formats, using a range of whole-group and small-group interactive methods. The collected data were analyzed thematically, using deductive and inductive coding. RESULTS The participants’ discussions revealed a range of technical, behavioral, operational, and organizational challenges surrounding PGHD, from the time when data are collected by patients to the time data are used by health care providers for clinical decision making. PGHD stakeholders found consensus on training and engagement needs, continuous collaboration among stakeholders, and development of technical and policy standards to assure PGHD quality. CONCLUSIONS Assuring PGHD quality is a complex process that requires the contribution of all PGHD stakeholders. The variety and depth of inputs in our workshop highlighted the importance of co-designing guidance for PGHD quality guidance.

mHealth in clinical decision-making: A systematic literature review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amandeep Dhir
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Rigorous Approach ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Mhealth Apps

UNSTRUCTURED A large number of mHealth apps are available nowadays for patients and health care providers. Many of those apps are designed specifically for clinical decision making (CDM). Despite their proliferation, limited studies have examined the utilization and effectiveness of these apps. The current study undertakes a systematic review to organize and synthesize the extant literature on mHealth for CDM in all resource settings. A thorough search of databases resulted in a preliminary list of 1,313 titles and abstracts, of which 1,107 were excluded as they were either duplicates or irrelevant to the scope of the study. Thereafter, full-text screening of the remaining 206 articles was performed, and 175 were excluded on the basis of pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. This rigorous approach resulted in the identification of 31 studies for inclusion in the review. The utilization of mHealth for CDM appears to have pervaded almost all health care settings, as demonstrated by the insights gleaned from the review of the prior studies in the domain. However, the evidence of effectiveness is still limited and unreliable, which underscores the existence of a paucity of accumulated knowledge that, in turn, invites interesting opportunities for future research.

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of Health Wearables Data: Participatory Workshop on Barriers, Solutions, and Expectations

10.2196/15329 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e15329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robab Abdolkhani ◽  
Kathleen Gray ◽  
Ann Borda ◽  
Ruth DeSouza
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Participatory Design ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Interactive Methods ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Practices

Background The ubiquity of health wearables and the consequent production of patient-generated health data (PGHD) are rapidly escalating. However, the utilization of PGHD in routine clinical practices is still low because of data quality issues. There is no agreed approach to PGHD quality assurance; therefore, realizing the promise of PGHD requires in-depth discussion among diverse stakeholders to identify the data quality assurance challenges they face and understand their needs for PGHD quality assurance. Objective This paper reports findings from a workshop aimed to explore stakeholders’ data quality challenges, identify their needs and expectations, and offer practical solutions. Methods A qualitative multi-stakeholder workshop was conducted as a half-day event on the campus of an Australian University located in a major health care precinct, namely the Melbourne Parkville Precinct. The 18 participants had experience of PGHD use in clinical care, including people who identified as health care consumers, clinical care providers, wearables suppliers, and health information specialists. Data collection was done by facilitators capturing written notes of the proceedings as attendees engaged in participatory design activities in written and oral formats, using a range of whole-group and small-group interactive methods. The collected data were analyzed thematically, using deductive and inductive coding. Results The participants’ discussions revealed a range of technical, behavioral, operational, and organizational challenges surrounding PGHD, from the time when data are collected by patients to the time data are used by health care providers for clinical decision making. PGHD stakeholders found consensus on training and engagement needs, continuous collaboration among stakeholders, and development of technical and policy standards to assure PGHD quality. Conclusions Assuring PGHD quality is a complex process that requires the contribution of all PGHD stakeholders. The variety and depth of inputs in our workshop highlighted the importance of co-designing guidance for PGHD quality guidance.

Pitfalls Associated With Antibiograms

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward H. Eiland ◽  
Christopher Ryan Dunne ◽  
William Lindgren
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Bacterial Resistance ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test ◽  
Critical Care Units ◽  
Correct Analysis

An accurate, appropriately collated antibiogram represents an integral resource for health care providers when assessing bacterial resistance and guiding antimicrobial selection and formulary decisions. Interpretation of bacterial susceptibility statistics is problematic yet frequent and unrecognized pitfalls may be avoided by following the M39-A2 guidelines to ensure correct analysis and presentation of cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data. This review addresses guideline recommendations related to antibiogram development, CLSI breakpoint interpretation, antimicrobial inclusion decisions, and the avoidance of duplicate and surveillance isolates. Unit-specific antibiograms in critical care units is encouraged for differentiation between hospital-wide ecology and these specific areas harboring more resistant pathogens. Antibiograms cannot track the emergence of microbial resistance during therapy and discrepancies exist between automated microbiology surveillance systems and their agreement with manual surveillance methods. When striving to improve overall patient outcomes, the use of a well-produced and disseminated antibiogram helps guide clinical decision making for patients requiring antimicrobial therapy.

scholarly journals Clinical decision-making approaches by health caregivers of patients with COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 4056-4057
Author(s):  
Mohsen Taghadosi ◽  
Neda Mirbagher Ajorpaz ◽  
Mohammad Aghajani
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
World Health ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The World

The Coronavirus disease of 2019 COVID-19) is the current health crisis in the world- a new, complex phenomenon that has affected and hospitalized many people around the world. Health care providers deal with COVID-19 patients daily and care for the patients while there is no definitive cure for it. Clinical decision-making is an important task of health professionals that plays an essential role in preserving the patient's life and providing quality care. Therefore, understanding clinical decision-making approaches by healthcare providers, such as nurses and physicians, especially in crises such as COVID-19, is essential.

Alternative Medicine and Multiple Sclerosis: An Objective Review from an American Perspective

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen C. Bowling ◽  
Ragaa Ibrahim ◽  
Thomas M. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
American Perspective ◽  
Conventional Medical Therapy

Abstract The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), or unconventional medicine, may be challenging for health care providers in the United States. There are several definitions of CAM, and therapies that are considered alternative in one country may be conventional in other countries. Unconventional medical practices may be used instead of, or in addition to, conventional medical therapy. It may be difficult for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to obtain reliable MS-relevant CAM information, and there may be conflicts between the values of patients and those of health care providers. These issues may create problems in the clinical decision-making process. The relevance to MS of some commonly used CAM therapies is discussed: herbal medicine, vitamins and minerals, marijuana, and a histamine and caffeine transdermal gel patch. Current information about the efficacy and safety of CAM therapies is extremely variable. Some therapies appear promising, others are unsafe or ineffective, and nearly all need to be studied further.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document