Literature DB >> 27045301

Clinical Recommendations in Medical Practice: A Proposed Framework to Reduce Bias and Improve the Quality of Medical Decisions.

David Alfandre1.   

Abstract

Patients rely on, benefit from, and are strongly influenced by physicians' recommendations. In spite of the centrality and importance of physicians' recommendations to clinical care, there is only a scant literature describing the conceptual process of forming a clinical recommendation, and no discrete professional standards for making individual clinical recommendations. Evidence-based medicine and shared decision making together are intended to improve medical decision making, but there has been limited attention to how a recommendation is discretely formulated from either of those processes or how patients' preferences ought to be considered and how much weight they should hold. Moreover, physicians' bias has been reported to strongly influence how a recommendation is derived, thereby undermining the quality of healthcare decisions and patients' trust. To demonstrate a potential for improving the quality of decisions, this article proposes a conceptual framework for how physicians should reach a clinical recommendation and apply the process in practice. For preference-sensitive clinical decisions-that is, clinical decisions when patients' values and preferences are relevant-the process for reaching a recommendation should be transparent to patients and should be based solely on the medical evidence and patients' values and preferences. When patients' preferences for care do not prioritize health, physicians decide whether their recommendation will prioritize a welfare-enhancing versus an autonomy-enhancing approach. When there are gaps in understanding how physicians derive their clinical recommendations and how to further improve the quality of the decisions, the author calls for further empiric research. Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27045301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Ethics        ISSN: 1046-7890


  5 in total

1.  Clinical practice guidelines of the French Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and the French Society for Psycho-oncology: refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer.

Authors:  J C Faivre; V Adam; V Block; M Metzger; J Salleron; S Dauchy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Association of Gender and Race With Allocation of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies.

Authors:  Khadijah Breathett; Erika Yee; Natalie Pool; Megan Hebdon; Janice D Crist; Ryan H Yee; Shannon M Knapp; Sade Solola; Luis Luy; Kathryn Herrera-Theut; Leanne Zabala; Jeff Stone; Marylyn M McEwen; Elizabeth Calhoun; Nancy K Sweitzer
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-07-01

3.  Provider Recommendations for Phase I Clinical Trials Within a Shared Decision-Making Model in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trial Discussions.

Authors:  Rachel S Hianik; Gavin P Campbell; Eli Abernethy; Colleen Lewis; Christina S Wu; Mehmet Akce; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-05-19

4.  Factors affecting primary care physician decision-making for patients with complex multimorbidity: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Linnaea Schuttner; Stacey Hockett Sherlock; Carol Simons; James D Ralston; Ann-Marie Rosland; Karin Nelson; Jennifer R Lee; George Sayre
Journal:  BMC Prim Care       Date:  2022-02-05

5.  Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Katya Tentori; Stefania Pighin; Claudio Divan; Vincenzo Crupi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.