A social‐technological epistemology of clinical decision‐making as mediated by imaging (original) (raw)
In recent years there has been growing attention to the epistemology of clinical decision‐making, but most studies have taken the individual physicians as the central object of analysis. In this paper we argue that knowing in current medical practice has an inherently social character and that imaging plays a mediating role in these practices. We have analyzed clinical decision‐making within a medical expert team involved in diagnosis and treatment of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), a rare disease requiring multidisciplinary team involvement in diagnosis and management. Within our field study, we conducted observations, interviews, video tasks, and a panel discussion. Decision‐making in the PH clinic involves combining evidence from heterogeneous sources into a cohesive framing of a patient, in which interpretations of the different sources can be made consistent with each other. Because pieces of evidence are generated by people with different expertise and interpretation and adjustments take place in interaction between different experts, we argue that this process is socially distributed. Multidisciplinary team meetings are an important place where information is shared, discussed, interpreted, and adjusted, allowing for a collective way of seeing and a shared language to be developed. We demonstrate this with an example of image processing in the PH service, an instance in which knowledge is distributed over multiple people who play a crucial role in generating an evaluation of right heart function. Finally, we argue that images fulfill a mediating role in distributed knowing in 3 ways: first, as enablers or tools in acquiring information ; second, as communication facilitators; and third, as pervasively framing the epistemic domain. With this study of clinical decision‐making in diagnosis and treatment of PH, we have shown that clinical decision‐making is highly social and mediated by technologies. The epistemol-ogy of clinical decision‐making needs to take social and technological mediation into account.
Related papers
Bringing social structure back into clinical decision making
1991
Although research in the past twenty years has resulted in an increasingly sophisticated understanding of clinical decision making processes, the dominant approach in this area of inquiry remains limited. Most studies emphasize normative models of how decisions ought to be made, others attempt to describe physicians' thinking, but few take the social context of decision making systematically into account. Research models typically assume that physicians are autonomous professionals practicing in socially insular clinical settings-an approach that is consistent with classic formulations of the social structure of medical practice, but they ignore 30 years of sociological research on patient-physician relationships and major historical changes in the structure of medical practice.
Implicit trust in clinical decision-making by multidisciplinary teams
In clinical practice, decision-making is not performed by individual knowers but by an assemblage of people and instruments in which no one member has full access to every piece of evidence. This is due to decision making teams consisting of members with different kinds of expertise, as well as to organisational and time constraints. This raises important questions for the epistemology of medicine, which is inherently social in this kind of setting, and implies epistemic dependence on others. Trust in these contexts is a highly complex social practice, involving different forms of relationships between trust and reasons for trust: based on reasons, and not based on reasons; based on reasons that are easily accessible to reflection and others that are not. In this paper, we focus on what it means to have reasons to trust colleagues in an established clinical team, collectively supporting or carrying out every day clinical decision-making. We show two important points about these reasons, firstly, they are not sought or given in advance of a situation of epistemic dependence, but are established within these situations; secondly they are implicit in the sense of being contained or nested within other actions that are not directly about trusting another person. The processes of establishing these reasons are directly about accomplishing a task, and indirectly about trusting someone else's expertise or competence. These processes establish a space of reasons within which what it means to have reasons for trust, or not, gains a meaning and traction in these teamwork settings. Based on a qualitative study of decision-making in image assisted diagnosis and treatment of a complex disease called pulmonary hypertension (PH), we show how an intersubjective framework, or 'space of reasons' is established through team members forging together a common way of identifying and dealing with evidence. In dealing with images as a central diagnostic tool, this also involves a common way of looking at the images, a common mode or style of perception. These frameworks are developed through many iterations of adjusting and calibrating interpretations in relation to those of others, establishing what counts as evidence, and ranking different kinds of evidence. Implicit trust is at work throughout this process. Trusting the expertise of others in clinical decision-making teams occurs while This article has been accepted for publication in a special issue on Medical Knowledge in Synthese. Please do not cite or distribute without permission by the authors. 2 the members of the team are busy on other tasks, most importantly, building up a framework of common modes of seeing, and common ways of identifying and assessing evidence emerge. It is only in this way that trusting or mistrusting becomes meaningful in these contexts, and that a framework for epistemic dependence is established.
Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition
Qualitative health research, 2016
Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distribu...
Distributed decision making in action: diagnostic imaging investigations within the bigger picture
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
Introduction: Decision making in the health care systemspecifically with regard to diagnostic imaging investigationsoccurs at multiple levels. Professional role players from various backgrounds are involved in making these decisions, from the point of referral to the outcomes of the imaging investigation. The aim of this study was to map the decision-making processes and pathways involved when patients are referred for diagnostic imaging investigations and to explore distributed decision-making events at the points of contact with patients within a health care system. Method: A two-phased qualitative study was conducted in an academic public health complex with the district hospital as entry point. The first phase included case studies of 24 conveniently selected patients, and the second phase involved 12 focus group interviews with health care providers. Data analysis was based on Rapley's interpretation of decision making as being distributed across time, situations and actions, and including different role players and technologies. Results: Clinical decisions incorporating imaging investigations are distributed across the three vital points of contact or decision-making events, namely the initial patient consultation, the diagnostic imaging investigation and the postinvestigation consultation. Each of these decision-making events is made up of a sequence of discrete decision-making moments based on the transfer of retrospective, current and prospective information and its transformation into knowledge. Conclusion: This paper contributes to the understanding of the microstructural processes (the 'when' and 'where') involved in the distribution of decisions related to imaging investigations. It also highlights the interdependency in decision-making events of medical and non-medical providers within a single medical encounter.
The Impact of Place of Decision-Making on Medical Decisions
One social impact of the computer has been to shift the locus of medical action from the bedside to the conference room. This change indicates a diminution in importance of clinical rationales for medical authority and a correponding increase in scientific ones. Clinical
Who knows best? Negotiations of knowledge in clinical decision making
Tidsskrift for Forskning i Sygdom og Samfund, 2015
This article examines the conflicts which arise when patients with chronic disease engage in decision making with health professionals about their medication. These are conflicts in the sense of discrepancies or incompatibilities between perceptions or opinions of different people engaged in a common endeavour. The paper is based on three qualitative research studies and presents one case from each study to illustrate analytical findings. Data collected in the original studies consisted of observations of clinical encounters and semi-structured interviews; in total 45 interviews with patients and 23 with health professionals. The analysis shows different conflicts, which arise during the process of making decisions about medication. These conflicts arise when: 1) Patients deliberately hold back information about their medication for fear of challenging clinicians’ authority; 2) The decision making process takes place in an environment, which does not support patient involvement; an...
Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2017
Making diagnostic and therapeutic decisions is a critical activity among physicians. It relies on the ability of physicians to use cognitive processes and specific knowledge in the context of a clinical reasoning. This ability is a core competency in physicians, especially in the field of emergency medicine where the rate of diagnostic errors is high. Studies that explore medical decision making in an authentic setting are increasing significantly. They are based on the use of qualitative methods that are applied at two separate times: 1) a video recording of the subject's actual activity in an authentic setting and 2) an interview with the subject, supported by the video recording. Traditionally, activity is recorded from an "external perspective"; i.e., a camera is positioned in the room in which the consultation takes place. This approach has many limits, both technical and with respect to the validity of the data collected. The article aims at 1) describing how dec...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.