PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8246706

Collaborative medical decision making.

C Christensen·J R Larson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Collaborative decision making occurs whenever two or more individuals contribute their diverse knowledge and expertise to the decision-making process. In medicine, this happens during morning rounds, case conferences, consultations, and elsewhere. This paper presents an analysis of collaborative medical decision making, focusing on two factors that can powerfully influence the kind of information that gets discussed, and hence the nature of the decisions that are made. These are 1) the pre-discussion distribution of problem-relevant information/knowledge, and 2) each participant's awareness of other individuals' knowledge and talents. The authors review previous psychological research on group decision making that concerns these factors, and call attention to several lines of inquiry that might fruitfully be pursued in clinical settings.

Explore related subjects

Decision Support TechniquesDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamSyncopeCase ReportsJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Christensen, J R Larson. Collaborative medical decision making.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9301300410

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

Broadening the evidence base for evidence-based guidelines. A research agenda based on the work of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Evidence-based evaluations of clinical preventive services help define priorities for research in prevention as part of primary health care. In this article, we draw on our experiences with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to outline some major areas where research is needed to define the appropriate use of specific screening tests, counseling interventions, immunizations, and chemoprophylaxis. Areas of particular importance included research to: (1) Identify effective and practical primary care interventions for modifying personal health practices of patients, especially around issues such as diet, exercise, alcohol and drug use, and risky sexual behavior; (2) Clarify the optimal periodicity for certain screening tests and counseling interventions; (3) Identify practical ways to allow patients to share decision-making about preventive care, especially for services of possible but uncertain benefit; (4) Examine the most sensitive and efficient ways to identify high-risk groups who may need different services than the average population; and (5) Expand the use of decision-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to help identify optimal use of clinical preventive services. Given the difficulty of large, prospective trials, we discuss the use of alternative research designs to fill in critical gaps in the evidence for the effectiveness of specific services. Finally, we note several issues of increasing importance that may need to be addressed by future work of the USPSTF: what are the most reliable and effective ways to (1) measure and (2) improve the delivery and quality of preventive care provided in the primary care setting.

Decision Support Techniques↗
PubMed1998

Competing conceptions of diagnostic reasoning--is there a way out?

Diagnostic errors are more frequently a result of the clinician's failure to combine medical knowledge adequately than of data inaccuracy. Diagnostic reasoning studies are valuable to understand and improve diagnostic reasoning. However, most diagnostic reasoning studies are characterized by some limitations which make these studies seem more simple than diagnostic reasoning in real life situations actually is. These limitations are connected both to the failure to acknowledge components of knowledge used in clinical practice as well as to acknowledge the physician-patient relationship's influence on clinical knowledge and on the reasoning process itself. In addition the modes of reasoning described in these studies frequently is oversimplified. In this paper three simplistic and competing models of diagnostic reasoning are analyzed and criticized, followed by an evaluation of two alternative models proposing a combined view.

Decision Support Techniques↗