Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Four maternity/obstetrical care organizations, representing women, midwives, obstetricians and family doctors conducted interdisciplinary policy research under auspices of four key stakeholder groups. These projects teams and key stakeholders subsequently collaborated to develop consensus on strategies for improved maternity services in Ontario. ⋯ This evaluation used an approach comprising scoping, pattern processing and sense making. While the projects produced considerable typical research evidence, the key policy questions could not be addressed by this alone, and a process of synthesis and consensus building with stakeholder engagement was applied. An adaptive system with local needs driving a relationship based network of interdisciplinary groupings or teams with both bottom up and central leadership. A complexity framework enhanced sense making for the system approaches and understandings that emerged.
-
Multicenter Study
GPs' perceptions of multiple-medicine use in older patients.
Multiple-medicine use (polypharmacy) is a growing problem for older patients, prescribers and health policy makers. The general practitioner (GP) is most often the main professional care provider; hence, improvements of treatment can only be carried out in concordance with GPs. The aim of this study was, therefore, to explore GPs' perspectives of treating older users of multiple medicines, using a qualitative approach. ⋯ The GPs felt insecure although surrounded by clinical practice guidelines. There is a need for policy makers to appreciate this paradox, as the problem is likely to grow in size and proportion. GPs must be empowered to handle the increasing proportion of older users of multiple medicines with individual agendas, receiving care from multiple specialists.
-
Data about health care organizations (HCOs) are not useful until they are interpreted. Such interpretations are influenced by the theoretical lenses used by the researcher. ⋯ We suggest that the task of interpreting research observations of HCOs could be improved if researchers take into account that the systems they study are CASs with non-linear relationships among diverse, learning agents. Our analysis points out how interpretation of research results might be shaped by the fact that HCOs are CASs. We described how learning is, in fact, the result of interactions among diverse agents and that learning can, by itself, reduce or increase agent diversity. We encouraged researchers to be persistent in their attempts to reason about complex systems and learn to attend not only to structures, but also to processes and functions of complex systems.
-
Prescribing decisions are not always based on published clinical research; social and environmental influences can sometimes drive such decisions. However, little is known about this topic in prescribing in secondary care. The aim of this study was to explore such influences by asking doctors to discuss their uncomfortable prescribing decisions in secondary care. ⋯ Incorporating the research evidence into prescribing decisions was associated with much discomfort by secondary care doctors. Greater efforts should also be placed towards developing the model of EBM, so that it fits more explicitly with how medicine is currently practised. Perhaps more importantly, educators need to reinforce what EBM is and what it is not to all concerned in the delivery of health care.
-
Rationale, aims and objectives Evidence-based medicine (EBM) claims to be based on 'evidence', rather than 'intuition'. However, EBM's fundamental distinction between quantitative 'evidence' and qualitative 'intuition' is not self-evident. The meaning of 'evidence' is unclear and no studies of quality exist to demonstrate the superiority of EBM in health care settings. ⋯ Results EBM's strict distinction between admissible evidence (based on RCTs) and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is not itself based on evidence, but rather, on intuition. In other words, according to EBM's own logic, there can be no 'evidentiary' basis for its distinction between admissible and inadmissible evidence. Ultimately, to uphold this fundamental distinction, EBM must seek recourse in (bio)political ideology and an epistemology akin to faith.