Search

This paper explores differences in how primary care doctors process the clinical presentation of depression by African American and African-Caribbean patients compared with white patients in the US and the UK. The aim is to gain a better understanding of possible pathways by which racial disparities arise in depression care. One hundred and eight doctors described their thought processes after viewing video recorded simulated patients presenting with identical symptoms strongly suggestive of depression. These descriptions were analysed using the CliniClass system, which captures information about micro-components of clinical decision making and permits a systematic, structured and detailed analysis of how doctors arrive at diagnostic, intervention and management decisions. Video recordings of actors portraying black (both African American and African-Caribbean) and white (both White American and White British) male and female patients (aged 55 years and 75 years) were presented to doctors randomly selected from the Massachusetts Medical Society list and from Surrey/South West London and West Midlands National Health Service lists, stratified by country (US v.UK), gender, and years of clinical experience (less v. very experienced). Findings demonstrated little evidence of bias affecting doctors' decision making processes, with the exception of less attention being paid to the potential outcomes associated with different treatment options for African American compared with White American patients in the US. Instead, findings suggest greater clinical uncertainty in diagnosing depression amongst black compared with white patients, particularly in the UK. This was evident in more potential diagnoses. There was also a tendency for doctors in both countries to focus more on black patients' physical rather than psychological symptoms and to identify endocrine problems, most often diabetes, as a presenting complaint for them. This suggests that doctors in both countries have a less well developed mental model of depression for black compared with white patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the impact of doctors' communication style and doctor-patient race concordance on UK African-Caribbeans' comfort in disclosing depression., Methods: 160 African-Caribbean and 160 white British subjects, stratified by gender and history of depression, participated in simulated depression consultations with video-recorded doctors. Doctors were stratified by black or white race, gender and a high (HPC) or low patient-centred (LPC) communication style, giving a full 2×2×2 factorial design. Afterwards, participants rated aspects of doctors' communication style, their comfort in disclosing depression and treatment preferences, Results: Race concordance had no impact on African-Caribbeans' comfort in disclosing depression. However a HPC versus LPC communication style made them significantly more positive about their interactions with doctors (p=0.000), their overall comfort (p=0.003), their comfort in disclosing their emotional state (p=0.001), and about considering talking therapy (p=0.01); but less positive about considering antidepressant medication (p=0.01)., Conclusion: Doctors' communication style was shown to be more important than patient race or race concordance in influencing African Caribbeans' depression consultation experiences. Changing doctors' communication style may help reduce disparities in depression care., Practice Implications: Practitioners should cultivate a HPC style to make African-Caribbeans more comfortable when disclosing depression, so that it is less likely to be missed., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This is the first of two linked papers exploring decision making in nursing which integrate research evidence from different clinical and academic disciplines. Currently there are many decision-making theories, each with their own distinctive concepts and terminology, and there is a tendency for separate disciplines to view their own decision-making processes as unique. Identifying good nursing decisions and where improvements can be made is therefore problematic, and this can undermine clinical and organizational effectiveness, as well as nurses' professional status. Within the unifying framework of psychological classification, the overall aim of the two papers is to clarify and compare terms, concepts and processes identified in a diversity of decision-making theories, and to demonstrate their underlying similarities. It is argued that the range of explanations used across disciplines can usefully be re-conceptualized as classification behaviour. This paper explores problems arising from multiple theories of decision making being applied to separate clinical disciplines. Attention is given to detrimental effects on nursing practice within the context of multidisciplinary health-care organizations and the changing role of nurses. The different theories are outlined and difficulties in applying them to nursing decisions highlighted. An alternative approach based on a general model of classification is then presented in detail to introduce its terminology and the unifying framework for interpreting all types of decisions. The classification model is used to provide the context for relating alternative philosophical approaches and to define decision-making activities common to all clinical domains. This may benefit nurses by improving multidisciplinary collaboration and weakening clinical elitism.

This is the second of two linked papers exploring decision making in nursing. The first paper, 'Classifying clinical decision making: a unifying approach' investigated difficulties with applying a range of decision-making theories to nursing practice. This is due to the diversity of terminology and theoretical concepts used, which militate against nurses being able to compare the outcomes of decisions analysed within different frameworks. It is therefore problematic for nurses to assess how good their decisions are, and where improvements can be made. However, despite the range of nomenclature, it was argued that there are underlying similarities between all theories of decision processes and that these should be exposed through integration within a single explanatory framework. A proposed solution was to use a general model of psychological classification to clarify and compare terms, concepts and processes identified across the different theories. The unifying framework of classification was described and this paper operationalizes it to demonstrate how different approaches to clinical decision making can be re-interpreted as classification behaviour. Particular attention is focused on classification in nursing, and on re-evaluating heuristic reasoning, which has been particularly prone to theoretical and terminological confusion. Demonstrating similarities in how different disciplines make decisions should promote improved multidisciplinary collaboration and a weakening of clinical elitism, thereby enhancing organizational effectiveness in health care and nurses' professional status. This is particularly important as nurses' roles continue to expand to embrace elements of managerial, medical and therapeutic work. Analysing nurses' decisions as classification behaviour will also enhance clinical effectiveness, and assist in making nurses' expertise more visible. In addition, the classification framework explodes the myth that intuition, traditionally associated with nurses' decision making, is less rational and scientific than other approaches.

This research describes a computerized model of human classification which has been constructed to represent the process by which assessments are made for psychodynamic psychotherapy. The model assigns membership grades (MGs) to clients so that the most suitable ones have high values in the therapy category. Categories consist of a hierarchy of components, one of which, ego strength, is analysed in detail to demonstrate the way it has captured the psychotherapist's knowledge. The bottom of the hierarchy represents the measurable factors being assessed during an interview. A questionnaire was created to gather the identified information and was completed by the psychotherapist after each assessment. The results were fed into the computerized model, demonstrating a high correlation between the model MGs and the suitability ratings of the psychotherapist (r = .825 for 24 clients). The model has successfully identified the relevant data involved in assessment and simulated the decision-making process of the expert. Its cognitive validity enables decisions to be explained, which means that it has potential for therapist training and also for enhancing the referral process, with benefits in cost effectiveness as well as in the reduction of trauma to clients. An adapted version measuring client improvement would give quantitative evidence for the benefit of therapy, thereby supporting auditing and accountability.