PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8908940

Critical thinking and problem solving.

Abstract

This article has discussed how critical thinkers solve problems. The ideas are intended to help pharmacists analyze problems and communicate recommendations. The ideas are intended to help pharmacists analyze their process for dealing with problems and to help with communication skills that facilitate information gathering and recommendations. The scientific method provides a framework for focused problem solving. Biases may adversely affect problem solving; critical thinkers work consciously to minimize them. Critical thinkers continually evaluate the quality of their information sources. Finally, critical thinkers practice effective communication skills. Each day, pharmacists make numerous decisions that have great impact on patient outcomes. These decisions must often be made with little warning and in a brief period of time. Providing pharmaceutical care demands that the critical-thinking process operate efficiently at all times. Just as sound clinical judgments depend on applying accepted principles of pharmacotherapy to individual patients, critical thinking must also be individualized. There is no single model for critical thinking. Many factors, including personality, environmental influence, and genetics, determine the critical-thinking process for a given individual. Critical thinking, however, is not an innate talent. It must be practiced and developed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

1996. Critical thinking and problem solving.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8908940/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias

Improving the accuracy of death certification.

BACKGROUND: Population-based mortality statistics are derived from the information recorded on death certificates. This information is used for many important purposes, such as the development of public health programs and the allocation of health care resources. Although most physicians are confronted with the task of completing death certificates, many do not receive adequate training in this skill. Resulting inaccuracies in information undermine the quality of the data derived from death certificates. METHODS: An educational intervention was designed and implemented to improve internal medicine residents' accuracy in death certificate completion. A total of 229 death certificates (146 completed before and 83 completed after the intervention) were audited for major and minor errors, and the rates of errors before and after the intervention were compared. RESULTS: Major errors were identified on 32.9% of the death certificates completed before the intervention, a rate comparable to previously reported rates for internal medicine services in teaching hospitals. Following the intervention the major error rate decreased to 15.7% (p = 0.01). The reduction in the major error rate was accounted for by significant reductions in the rate of listing of mechanism of death without a legitimate underlying cause of death (15.8% v. 4.8%) (p = 0.01) and the rate of improper sequencing of death certificate information (15.8% v. 6.0%) (p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Errors are common in the completion of death certificates in the inpatient teaching hospital setting. The accuracy of death certification can be improved with the implementation of a simple educational intervention.

Bias