Search

Background: This position paper highlights the opportunistic integral role of the pharmacist across the patient pathway utilizing cardiovascular care as an example. The paper aims to highlight the potential roles that pharmacists worldwide can have (or already have) to provide efficient patient care in the context of interprofessional collaboration., Methods: It results from a literature review and experts seeking advice to identify existing interventions and potential innovative interventions. We developed a conceptual framework highlighting seven critical phases in the patient pathway and for each of those listed some of the initiatives identified by our experts worldwide., Results: Existing pharmacists' interventions in each of these phases have been identified globally. Various examples in the area of prevention and self-management were found to exist for long; the contribution for early detection and subsequently to timely diagnosis were also quite clear; integration of care was perhaps one of the areas needing greater development, although interventions in secondary care were also quite common. Tertiary care and end of life interventions were found to often be left for other healthcare professionals., Conclusion: On the basis of the findings, we can argue that much has been done but globally consider that pharmacists are still an untapped resource potentially useful for improved patient care., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose It has been estimated that medication errors (ME) are responsible for 7000 deaths each year. Some studies show that electronic prescribing systems have achieved health benefits and patient safety, resulting in a saving of resources. Other studies suggest that they may increase adverse events. Objective The objective of this study was to compare medication errors between electronic and paper-based prescription detected during pharmacovigilance. Methods This was an observational, cross-sectional comparative study of 600 randomized medical records that were systematically reviewed by a pharmacovigilance team, with a deliberate search for ME. Each error was classified according to its severity, National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and Prevention taxonomy and high-risk medications. The number of errors was calculated per 100 prescribed medications, number of errors per record and number of records with an error as a quality indicator. Results A total of 229 ME were found with a mean per record of 0.38 (SD = 0.7), of which 155 corresponded to the paper-based method (1.04, SD = 1.67) and 74 to the electronic-based method (0.29, SD = 0.57) P = <0.001. The use of the electronic method was associated with an OR of 0.59 (95% CI 0.41-0.85) for the recording of at least one ME ( P = 0.005), but to a greater severity of ME (<0.001). Conclusion The use of the electronic system was associated with a reduction in ME, compared with the paper-based method. Despite this, it was associated with more severe ME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation is a powerful method for establishing belief. Published statements gain credibility when followed by citations. Citation in its purest form consists of the scholarly connection of authors' ideas and claims to existing literature, yet there are also non-scholarly uses of citation that are best called citation distortions. Unfounded biomedical belief systems arising from citation distortions may become widely accepted as fact. The development of methodology for the study of citation distortions and belief systems regarding scientific claims was recently described. Here, I discuss further the methodological approaches to studying published scientific belief systems and identifying citation distortions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approaches to time management in general practices characteristically focus on objective ‘clock time’, for example, through appointment scheduling. No less important, however, is how patients experience time duration. Time is experienced as having passed slowly (time prolongation), quickly (time compression) or in rough synchronization with clock time. Duration has been theorized to be positively associated with information processing. This paper builds on that theory to suggest how practices can influence patients’ subjective experience of duration in the practice environment, for example, by making waiting times appear to quicken and consultations appear to slow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the clinical reasoning in the age of artificial intelligence, evidence-based medicine and Covid-19. Topics include the central themes are then addressed directly in a series of papers which take up arguments, the debates that have been on-going throughout the life of the journal and are still in the process of development evidence-based medicine, and the papers in each of the preceding sections make specific reference to the challenges presented by the Covid-19.

The General Medical Council hearing into events at the Bristol Royal Infirmary resulted in verdicts of serious professional misconduct against three senior doctors. After the longest-running hearing in the GMC’s history the press response was fierce. This paper reviews the reporting of the Bristol case (and issues arising from it) in the main broadsheet and tabloid national newspapers (dailies and Sundays) in the 5-week period around the GMC’s delivery of the verdicts and subsequent sentencing. The aim was to describe the main themes emerging from the press coverage and to assess the implications for future debates over clinical performance and accountability. Media interest in the Bristol case was intense (184 published items in 5 weeks). The reporting was emotive and largely hostile, raising doubts about not just isolated lapses of care but also the possibility of more systematic failings. Diminished trust and reduced public confidence were recurrent themes, powerfully expressed. Professional self-regulation received scathing criticism, with calls for more public access to individual performance data. Future debates about clinical governance will need to take account of the new public context in the wake of Bristol. Arguments about the relative merits of self-regulation or data-driven performance management systems now need to be played out for a knowing and openly sceptical print media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on an article on populist journalism, in relation to a court hearing in Bristol, England in 1998. Excerpt from an editorial on professional self-regulation; Issue surrounding the revalidation of doctors by Great Britain's General Medical Council; Criticism against the practice of journalism.

Aims and Objectives: The overall aim of this paper is to provide practical insight into the way that professionals caring for a person with motor neurone disease (MND) can recognise, respect and respond to that person's temporality; that is, the person that they have been, that they are now and that they will be in the future. Background: MND is an umbrella term for a group of four rare, devastating neurodegenerative terminal diseases of middle/later life. Previously, we have acknowledged the importance of different time periods in the trajectory of MND as an illness, for example, during the diagnosis stage through to end of life and decision‐making at that time. Living with MND can cause anxiety at all stages of the disease trajectory especially as it can be difficult for people living with MND to communicate their desires and concerns to professionals and carers. It is important that professionals continue to provide holistic care throughout the illness trajectory and the aim of this paper is to explore past research about caring for someone with MND in relation to the concept of person‐centred care. Method: The paper is based on the concatenated exploration of the findings of a hermeneutic phenomenological project. Thus, this discursive paper links elements/studies which have been published previously to develop a model of person‐centred care for people with MND which recognises and respects their temporality. Conclusions: We suggest MND has a significant impact on a person's lifeworld. The proposed person‐centred care model focuses on understanding (interpreting) a person in a wider temporal frame and beyond the context of their illness. The expected collaborative outcomes are that: a person is acknowledged as more than a 'patient with MND' and that a professional is providing person‐centred care based on individuality of the person, through a temporal lens. This requires a collaborative approach between the person, others and professionals. Such person‐centred care, focused on individuality, may prevent a person experiencing life in crisis and suffering towards the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Understanding the impact of health information technology on doctor-patient interaction is vital to designing better electronic health records ( EHRs). This article quantitatively examines and compares clinically experienced physicians' interactions with patients using paper or EHRs in ambulatory primary care settings. Methods Clinical encounters using paper or EHRs were recorded with high-resolution video cameras to capture physicians' interactions with the health records and patients. All videos were coded using quantified video coding methodology to understand how physicians interacted with EHRs and patients through measuring eye gaze durations. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the results of the paper and EHR visits. Results Eight experienced family medicine physicians and 80 patients participated in the study. A total of 80 visits, 40 with paper and 40 with EHRs were recorded. The proportion of time physicians spent gazing at medical records during EHR visits was significantly more than in paper chart visits (35.2 versus 22.1%, P = 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of physician time was spent gazing at the patient when using an EHR compared with when using a paper chart (52.6 versus 45.6%, P = 0.041). Conclusions For this group of family medicine physicians, more time was spent looking at the EHR screen than paper records and a little less time looking at the patient. These findings may negatively affect the patient perception of the visit with the physician and have implications for the design of future EHRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Aims: The present paper aimed at discussing how the process of decision‐making should be taken care of in healthcare services. Methods: This is a position paper based on a review of the relevant literature about meaning‐making processes in medical encounters and psychotherapy. Discussion: Authors argued that choice options could be perceived as meaningful by patients if their uncertainties were taken into account and grounded on mutual understanding and reciprocal trust. To this end, any decision‐making process should satisfy the patient's legitimate expectations by making choices and habits compatible. Conclusion: In depht analysis of meaning‐making processes is crucial for better refining good practices of shared decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion The COVID‐19 pandemic has not only tested the resilience of public health systems but also underscored the criticality of allocative choices on health resources. These choices, however, are not confined to health emergencies but are integral to public health decisions, which inherently grapple with limited resources. In this context, physicians play a pivotal role as the architects of clinical actions in various scenarios. Therefore, doctors are called upon to make their decisions by considering not only the criteria of clinical appropriateness but also the ethical aspects linked, in particular, to the principle of justice. Indeed, the assessment of the effectiveness of a treatment for a particular patient must be balanced against criteria of equity and justice for the whole. To be fully applied, the principle of justice presupposes the use of economic evaluation techniques designed to drive the organisation decisions by effectiveness and efficiency.The present paper aims to empirically analyse whether and to what extent economic evaluation is known and used by doctors in healthcare decision‐making and, therefore, what the most widespread approaches are used in such processes.In particular, this paper intends to present the results of an empirical study on a sample of doctors registered with the Order of Physicians in Lombardy (Italy), one of the areas most affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic.The research reveals a particular awareness of the criticality of allocation issues accompanied by a lack of knowledge of the economic evaluation techniques or, more broadly, by an almost total disuse of financial criteria. The main reasons are doctors’ need for more knowledge of these tools and insufficient availability of economic information at the country system level.In the conclusion, we propose some suggestions to facilitate the transition to more current decision‐making models consistent with the characteristics of more advanced national healthcare contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify the influence of teamwork, communication skills, and structural empowerment on providing patient‐centered care among nurses in Eswatini. Design: A quantitative, cross‐sectional survey was used. Methods: This survey conducted in Eswatini selected registered nurses working as full‐time nurses with more than 3 months of working experience using convenience sampling. Different measures were adopted and used to collect data among 130 eligible nurses from February to March 2022. Data were analyzed using Statistical Program for Social Sciences version 26.0. Results: A total of 123 nurses responded in the study and the mean age was 31.05 years with a standard deviation of 5.49. The overall response rate was 94.6% in this study. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that teamwork (β = 0.236, p < 0.05) and communication skills (β = 0.328, p < 0.05) were significant predictors of the provision of patient‐centered care among nurses. Conclusion: Team‐building exercises and management interventions to empower nurses should be established to improve the provision of patient‐centered care among nurses. Nurses should be empowered to provide patient‐centered care in health facilities by encouraging them to provide their input in management procedures and planning programs. Impact: Clinical practice requires nurses to use effective communication skills and work as a team. Nursing care established on teamwork, respect, empathy, and communication skills allows patients to express their concerns and views in health facilities as they feel involved in care. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution in this paper. This study only involved registered nurses as health professionals. Summary Statement: What is already known? : Patient‐centered care gives patients the chance to participate actively in discussions and consultations.Patient‐centered care requires nurses to work as a team, use effective communication skills, and feel empowered during the execution of their work.Nurses who are empowered are less likely to make medical errors, and collaborative nurses provide better patient‐centered care. What does this paper add? : Highlights that teamwork and communication skills influence nurses' ability to provide patient‐centered care.Add to the growing evidence‐based support that there is a need for teamwork and communication education programs for registered nurses in the workplace.Empowering nurses to participate in management processes and program planning will enable them to deliver patient‐centered care in healthcare facilities. Implications for practice/policy : Education programs focusing on teamwork and communication skills should be provided to nurses working in the clinical setting to enhance the quality of patient care and improve collaboration.All hospitals should adopt a tailored intervention designed to enhance the delivery of patient‐centered care to raise the standard of care.It is imperative that nurses prioritize the development of their teamwork, respect, empathy, and communication skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Aims and Objectives Method Results and Conclusion The Joint Commission emphasizes the importance of cultural competence and effective communication in quality medical care, particularly during end‐of‐life (EOL), when decisions are influenced by diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. For Orthodox Jewish patients, the philosophical framework used for EOL decision‐making may conflict with that used in traditional Western medical ethics. In this paper, we explore the complexities of EOL decision‐making for devout Jewish patients and highlight how approaches may differ from a Western ethical framework.This paper aims to familiarize clinicians with EOL preferences of Orthodox Jewish patients, organized into an ethical framework called ‘casuistic deontology’. Leading with an open‐minded approach emphasizing cultural humility, we explore ways in which integrating this perspective can allow for culturally appropriate and compassionate EOL care.Using a case study methodology, we focus on a 79‐year‐old Orthodox Jewish male hospitalized with severe injuries. The patient's medical course is analyzed, highlighting how the decisions made by his family in consultation with their Rabbi may differ from the decisions made with a philosophy of a Western ethical framework.This case illustrates the ethical tensions that may arise when Western medical practices intersect with Orthodox Jewish beliefs, particularly regarding brain death, resuscitation, and artificial nutrition. We underscore the need for cultural sensitivity when approaching EOL decision‐making, allowing for compassionate and comprehensive care that respects religious perspectives. This paper helps provide a structure for clinicians to navigate the complex EOL care needs for the devout Jewish patient in a manner consistent with their cultural and religious identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence‐based practice is the principle governing a range of healthcare practices and beyond. However, it has suffered from a lack of philosophical rigour. This paper sets out to analyse the epistemological basis of evidence‐based practice. Method: The paper uses a conceptual analysis. First, it describes the implicit epistemology at work in evidence‐based practice. Second, it evaluates the implicit epistemological basis. Results: The analysis indicates that evidence‐based practice lacks an explicit epistemological basis. It shows, moreover, that the implicit epistemological basis is untenable. Conclusion: There is a need to re‐think the epistemological basis for evidence‐based practice. Evidence‐based practice is out of touch with developments within philosophy of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that our healthcare systems and medical education programs are fundamentally flawed. In North America and Europe, most systems were built upon values and structures that have historically benefitted middle and upper class males of European descent in the global north. As a result, there continue to be systemic biases that are pervasive throughout our healthcare systems and medical education programs. This has led to inequities in health outcomes and clinical reasoning practices which marginalize several communities. These biases are perpetuated as we continue to lead medical education research and practice with traditional values and views of evidence. To address these issues, we proposed a 'flipped' conference in which three interdisciplinary writing teams, comprised of both junior and senior academics, clinicians, and researchers, were invited to rethink the foundations of clinical reasoning. In the months leading up to the conference, each writing team explored a specific topic related to clinical reasoning and racial equity. The papers, presented during the virtual conference are now available in this issue of the Journal for the Evaluation of Clinical Practice. In addition, 6 more publications were added to this special topic to showcase new evidence and theory that builds on the recommendations in the three core papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives: The COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID‐19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency. Methods: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer‐reviewed journals, pre‐print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID‐19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. Results: This second paper demonstrates that a lack of research prioritization and methodological rigour resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines. The reporting of scientific findings to the scientific community and general public highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed. Conclusions: The COVID‐19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence‐based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses an ontological question about the nature of health and challenges some underpinning assumptions in western healthcare. In its analysis, health in its various statuses, is framed as a naturally occurring complex adaptive system made up of dynamically interacting subsystems that include the physiological, psychological, and social realms. Furthermore, openness in complex systems such as health, is necessary for the exchange of energy, information, and resources. Yet, within healthcare much effort is invested in constraining systems' behaviours, whether they be systems of knowledge, health, healthcare, and more. This paper draws on the complexity sciences and Levinasian philosophy to explicate the essential role of system openness in individual, population, and systemic viability. It highlights holism to be "not whole‐ism", and system openness to be, not just a reality, but a critical feature of viability. Hence requisite openness is advocated as essential to efficacious and ethical healthcare practice and strategy, and vital for health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large number of illnesses that lack physical visibility are characterised by troubled clinical encounters. Endometriosis is one such condition with very real and often debilitating symptoms that remain invisible to the clinician's eye, but are experienced and lived by the patient. Method: This paper probes into two first person accounts of endometriosis to find out how endometriosis patients experience health care. The Tiger and the Cage: A Memoir of a Body in Crisis (2022) by Emma Bolden and Vagina Problems: Endometriosis, Painful Sex, and Other Taboo Topics (2020) by Lara Parker are both memoirs that details on the trivialisation and delegitimization of the women's accounts of their own lived reality by a health care system that often privileges medical evidence over lived experiences of the patients. After giving a brief introduction on the condition, the paper goes on to detail on the method and conceptual frameworks chosen for analysis. This is followed by an in‐depth analysis into the two texts using thematic analysis proposed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke to identify shared patterns of meanings in the texts. Discussion: The identified themes take the form of emotions repeatedly narrated by the women. The findings indicate instances of disrespect, epistemic invalidation and compromised autonomy, due to which six shared categories of negative emotions are experienced by the patients: self‐doubt, shame, fear, powerlessness, self‐blame and anger. Conclusion: The paper concludes by indicating the urgency of improved medical training, that better educates and facilitates health care professionals in dealing with conditions with complicated aetiology, difficult diagnosis and no cure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain has proven to be a refractory problem in US healthcare. This paper argues that starting to address this requires viewing pain‐assessment as a form of sense‐making that occurs between patients and providers. Section I argues that two standard definitions of 'pain' that are thought to subtend pain assessment are not viable. Section II proffers a very different way to think about the meaning of 'pain'. Section III develops this novel account by pairing Rorty's account of hermeneutics with recent developments in the pain‐assessment literature. Finally, section four moves beyond Rorty by linking sense‐making to philosophical health. Should this prove persuasive, I will have shown an area in biomedicine where philosophy is not an 'optional add on', but a vitally important part of what should be clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessments of treatments for 'subjective symptoms' are problematic and potentially contentious. These are symptoms without ascertainable pathophysiology, also referred to as 'medically unexplained.' Treatments of them may be assessed from different perspectives, and an assessment as seen from one perspective may be discrepant with an assessment as seen from another perspective. The observational study described in the paper represents one perspective. Patients in the study were treated with acupuncture for the subjective symptom of low back pain in a Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinic in China; acupuncture is a form of TCM, which is indigenous to China. Shortly after treatment began and six months afterward, patients reported 'clinically important improvements' on a variety of standard, cross‐culturally validated outcome measures, including pain intensity, physical functioning, and emotional functioning; this assessment is consistent with numerous assessments of acupuncture in China and other Southeastern Asian countries. On the other hand, clinical trials represent another perspective from which to assess acupuncture. Although assessments based on trials are not uniform, several assessments based on them, including those published in journals such as Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, conclude that acupuncture is not effective. These trials, however, were mainly situated in the U.S., western European countries, and other WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) countries. This is notable, because the population of China, the indigenous context of acupuncture, is greater than populations of WEIRD countries combined. Patients' expectations of a treatment such as acupuncture and their prior familiarity with it vary among contexts, and patients' experiences of treatment outcomes may vary accordingly. In short, although clinical trials constitute a test of truth in biomedicine and inform authoritative assessments in WEIRD countries, they do not necessarily represent the truth from the perspective of those experiencing outcomes of especially indigenous treatments for subjective symptoms in non‐WEIRD contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Challenges associated with translating evidence into practice are well recognised and calls for effective strategies to reduce the time lag and successfully embed evidence‐based practices into usual care are loud and clear. While a plethora of nonpharmacological interventions for people with dementia exist; few are based on strong evidence and there is little consideration for programme operationalisation in the complex environment of long‐term care. Aims and Objectives: This paper describes the preparation for the implementation of the Weaving Evidence into Action for Veterans with dementia project, incorporating the codesign of delivery of four evidence‐based, nonpharmacological interventions. Method: Implementation preparation for this type 2 hybrid effectiveness‐implementation project was underpinned by the Implementation Framework for Aged Care (IFAC). A sociocultural–political contextual scan was undertaken, and reflection on the IFAC question 'why change?' with key stakeholders. Delivery of the four interventions of music therapy, exercise, reminiscence therapy and sensory modulation was explored using codesign methodology. Preparation of both intervention delivery personnel and recipients was via training, establishment of a change team and promotional/awareness‐raising strategies. Results: The contextual scan revealed Australian government reforms and organisational imperatives facing long‐term care services, while reflections on 'why change' flagged best practice dementia care at the local care home level. Several codesign sessions involved veterans with dementia, family members, care home staff members and volunteers to ensure programme alignment with needs and preferences, accounting for existing activities. Training was designed and delivered before programme commencement. A change team was established and strategies to support behaviour change instigated. Implementation evaluation is reported elsewhere. Conclusion: The extended preparatory period for implementation, afforded by the COVID‐19 pandemic on programme commencement, enabled time for widespread understanding of the programme and necessary upskill of staff. Comprehensive codesign with all stakeholders of programme components identified core and flexible elements necessary for fidelity of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in the context of clinical care, but evaluation of patients' perspectives of PRO‐based applications in routine care remains limited. Aims and Objectives: This paper investigates patients' acceptability of a personalized web‐based decision report for total knee or hip replacement and identifies opportunities to refine the report. Method: This qualitative evaluation was embedded in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial of the report. We interviewed 25 patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis about their experiences using the personalized decision report in the context of a surgical consultation. The web‐based report contained current descriptive PRO scores of pain, function and general physical health; tailored predicted postoperative PRO scores (i.e., personalized likely outcomes based on actual knee or hip replacement outcomes of similar patients in a national registry); and information about alternative nonoperative treatments. Two trained researchers analysed the interview data qualitatively using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. Results: We identified three major categories for evaluation: content of report, presentation of data in report and engagement with report. Patients generally liked the report overall but specifically valued different pages of the report based on where they were in the surgical decision‐making process. Patients identified areas of confusion in data presentation related to graph orientation, terminology and interpretation of T‐scores. Patients also highlighted support needs to meaningfully engage with the information in the report. Conclusion: Our findings highlight areas of opportunity to further refine this personalized web‐based decision report and similar patient‐facing PRO applications for routine clinical care. Specific examples include additional tailoring of reports via filterable web‐based dashboards and scalable educational supports to facilitate more independent patient understanding and use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant proportion of somatic symptoms remain, at present, medically unexplained. These symptoms are common, can affect any part of the body, and can result in a wide range of outcomes—from a minor, transient inconvenience to severe, chronic disability—but medical testing reveals no observable pathology. This paper explores two first‐person accounts of so‐called 'medically unexplained' illness: one that is published in a memoir, and the other produced during a semi‐structured interview. Both texts are revelatory for their expression of shame in the context of encountering disrespect from healthcare professionals. The first section of my paper, clinical encounters, explores disrespect which, I argue, takes three interconnecting forms in these texts: disrespect for pain when it is seen as 'medically unexplained', disrespect for the patient's account of her own pain, and disrespect for the patient herself. The second section elucidates the shame that occurs as an affective and embodied consequence of encountering such disrespect. I claim that patients living with so‐called 'medically unexplained' illnesses suffer a double burden. They endure both somatic and social suffering—not only their symptoms, but also disrespectful, traumatic and shame‐inducing experiences of healthcare systems. I conclude with a reflection on the urgent need for changes in clinical training that could improve the quality of life for these patients, even in the absence of an explanation, treatment or cure for their symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Aims and Objectives: Horizontal violence has been defined as aggressive or hostile behaviour directed at an individual or between colleagues from the same working group. Measuring the prevalence of horizontal violence requires valid measures. To date, there has not been a review of the psychometric properties of available measurement tools for horizontal violence. Method: A rapid review of the MEDLINE and BUSINESS EBSCO databases was conducted to identify studies testing the validity of any measure of horizontal violence in any workplace setting. Title and abstract and full‐text screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were completed by two researchers working independently. The COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) was used to determine the methodological quality of studies, including details of the psychometric properties of included papers. Results: Fourteen papers reporting 17 studies were included in the review. Seven measures of horizontal violence (Civility Norms Questionnaire Brief; Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised; Inventory of Violence and Psychological Harassment; Leyman Inventory Psychological Terror Mobbing of Single Cases of Harassment in Employees Relations; Shortened Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised; Uncivil Workplace Behaviour Questionnaire) were identified. Most included studies were methodologically robust. Six measures had strong psychometric properties except for the Mobbing of Single Cases of Harassment in Employees Relations (MSCH) where key information about psychometric properties was not reported. Conclusions: We identified six measures of horizontal violence that had good psychometric properties. The Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised has been most extensively tested in different settings but is not necessarily a more precise measure than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Six years ago, the Supreme Court judgement in Montgomery v Lanarkshire changed medical law. It introduced a new patient‐based standard of care for the communication of treatment risks and alternatives, rejecting the doctor‐based standard that had long governed all aspects of medical negligence. This is the first systematic review to analyse the literature on Montgomery. Our aim is to appraise and synthesize the literature on Montgomery's impact on medicine and the law and to identify areas for further academic enquiry and implications for professional guidance and training. Methods: Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Westlaw UK, HeinOnline, and LexisNexis. Two reviewers screened papers. Extracted data was analysed and discussed by an interdisciplinary team. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results: Of the 1134 papers identified, 100 met the inclusion criteria. These papers revealed significant disagreement on four core sets of issues, focusing on Montgomery's impact on: (1) legal and professional duties; (2) medical practice; (3) the patient experience; and (4) litigation. The first set addresses whether the case actually changed doctors' legal and professional duties, the relationship between GMC guidance and medical law, and the boundaries of Montgomery. The second explores whether the decision has incentivized defensive medicine, its resource implications, and doctors' knowledge of it. The third concerns whether and how the decision has promoted patient autonomy and involvement in their own care. The fourth focuses on whether the case has caused an increase in litigation. Conclusions: Despite the abundance of legal and medical literature on Montgomery, many issues remain unresolved. Empirical research is required for many of the questions. Doctrinal analysis informed by medical knowledge is also required to assess whether Montgomery may have unrecognized ramifications—for example, whether it will require the disclosure of risks associated with diagnostic uncertainty, where doctors advise patients without performing procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Self‐management support for schizophrenia has become expected practice leaving organisations to find ways for feasible implementation. Self‐management support involves a foundational cultural shift for traditional disease‐based services, new ways of clients‐providers working together, coupled with delivering a portfolio of tools and techniques. A new model of self‐management support embedded into traditional case management services, called SET for Health (Self‐management Engaging Together for Health), was designed and tailored to make such services meaningfully accessible to clients of a tertiary care centre. This paper describes the proof of concept demonstration efforts, the successes/challenges, and initial organisational changes. Method: An integrated knowledge translation approach was selected as a means to foster organisational change grounded in users' daily realities. Piloting the model in two community case management programmes, we asked two questions: Can a model of self‐management support be embedded in existing case management and delivered within routine specialised mental health services? What organisational changes support implementation? Results: Fifty‐one clients were enroled. Indicators of feasible delivery included 72.5% completion of self‐management plans in a diverse sample, exceeding the 44% set minimum; and an attrition rate of 21.6%, less than 51% set maximum. Through an iterative evaluation process, the innovation evolved to a targeted hybrid approach revolving around client goals and a core set of co‐created reference tools, supplemental tools and resources. Operationalisation by use of tools was implemented to create spaces for client‐provider collaborations. Monitoring of organisational changes identified realignment of practices. Changes were made to procedures and operations to further spread and sustain the model. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how self‐management support can be implemented, within existing resources, for routine delivery of specialised services for individuals living with schizophrenia. The model holds promise as a hybrid option for supporting clients to manage their own health and wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives The quality of the current literature on external validity varies considerably. An improved checklist with validated items on external validity would aid decision-makers in judging similarities among circumstances when transferring evidence from a study setting to an implementation setting. In this paper, currently available checklists on external validity are identified, assessed and used as a basis for proposing a new improved instrument. Method A systematic literature review was carried out in Pubmed, Embase and Cinahl on English-language papers without time restrictions. The retrieved checklist items were assessed for (i) the methodology used in primary literature, justifying inclusion of each item; and (ii) the number of times each item appeared in checklists. Results Fifteen papers were identified, presenting a total of 21 checklists for external validity, yielding a total of 38 checklist items. Empirical support was considered the most valid methodology for item inclusion. Assessment of methodological justification showed that none of the items were supported empirically. Other kinds of literature justified the inclusion of 22 of the items, and 17 items were included on the basis of consensus. On 36 occasions, the items were presented without methodological justification for inclusion. Assessment of frequency/occurrence showed that items were mentioned in one to at most 17 checklists. Conclusion This paper provides building blocks for the development of a new checklist for external validity. The next step is provision of empirical evidence for the checklist items to be selected, and finally, development and validation of a checklist on external validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person‐centred care, patient expertise and shared decision‐making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add‐ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on‐going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under‐developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision‐making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real‐world contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper depicts a Covid science case, that of the AstraZeneca Vaxzevria vaccine, with specific focus on what happened in Italy. Given that we believe acknowledging the role of non‐evidential factors in medicine is an important insight into the recent philosophy of science, we illustrate how in the case of Vaxzevria, the interplay between facts, values (both epistemic and non‐epistemic) and cognitive biases may have possibly led to different institutional decisions based on the same evidence. The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we provide a glossary of the relevant terms involved, that is to say, epistemic values, non‐epistemic values and cognitive biases. Second, we sketch a timeline of Vaxzevria's approvals and suspensions by relevant institutional healthcare authorities with special focus on Italy and the Italian Medicines Agency. Then we show the interplay between the evidence base, epistemic as well as non‐epistemic values and cognitive biases using a narrative review of political decisions along with newspaper and social media content pertaining to Vaxzevria. We briefly compare Italy with other European countries to show that different political decisions were made on the basis of the same evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To reduce their decisional uncertainty, health policy decision‐makers rely more often on experts or their intuition than on evidence‐based knowledge, especially in times of urgency. However, this practice is unacceptable from an evidence‐based medicine (EbM) perspective. Therefore, in fast‐changing and complex situations, we need an approach that delivers recommendations that serve decision‐makers' needs for urgent, sound and uncertainty‐reducing decisions based on the principles of EbM. Aims: The aim of this paper is to propose an approach that serves this need by enriching EbM with theory. Materials and Methods: We call this the EbM+theory approach, which integrates empirical and theoretical evidence in a context‐sensitive way to reduce intervention and implementation uncertainty. Results: Within this framework, we propose two distinct roadmaps to decrease intervention and implementation uncertainty: one for simple and the other for complex interventions. As part of the roadmap, we present a three‐step approach: applying theory (step 1), conducting mechanistic studies (EbM+; step 2) and conducting experiments (EbM; step 3). Discussion: This paper is a plea for integrating empirical and theoretical knowledge by combining EbM, EbM+ and theoretical knowledge in a common procedural framework that allows flexibility even in dynamic times. A further aim is to stimulate a discussion on using theories in health sciences, health policy, and implementation. Conclusion: The main implications are that scientists and health politicians – the two main target groups of this paper—should receive more training in theoretical thinking; moreover, regulatory agencies like NICE may think about the usefulness of integrating elements of the EbM+theory approach into their considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fear and anxiety can interfere profoundly with a person's ability to deliberate. Patients sometimes face critical medical decisions while subject to intense emotions which involve catastrophic (or wishful) convictions about the future. Medical teams, and even psychiatrists and bioethicists, lack a model for what to do in such cases. Philosophical accounts of autonomy and the clinical criteria for decision‐making capacity derived from them fail to address cases in which emotions do not merely skew judgment but rather block decision‐making capacity itself. This paper provides an account of when emotions undermine a person's freedom to deliberate, which is the basis of the capacity for autonomy. People subject to what I call 'concretized emotions' meet the cognitive criteria for decision‐making capacity. Yet their emotions dictate their views of reality and prevent them from meeting the basic conditions for deliberation. To deliberate one needs to be able to think through alternatives, and this thinking through alternatives needs to be responsive to evidence. With concretized fear, both the ability to think through alternatives and the ability to respond cognitively to evidence is undermined. The person can engage in apparent deliberation, but her thought processes regarding the feared matter are characterized by the rigid view that things are just as they seem from her emotional view. This paper develops a theoretical and clinical model for a more appropriate and nuanced approach to acting responsibly toward patients subject to intense fear and related emotional states that block their decision‐making capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]