Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise.

RATIONALE: Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In the present paper, we take issue with these claims. METHOD: We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence. RESULTS: We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory-that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.

Revelation of mindlines in the setting of crisis.

During the devastating early months of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic in New York, healthcare systems and clinicians dynamically adapted to drastically changing everyday practice despite having little guidance from formal research evidence in the face of a novel virus. Through new, silo-breaking networks of communication, clinical teams transformed and synthesized provisional recommendations, rudimentary published research findings and numerous other sources of knowledge to address the immediate patient care needs they faced during the pandemic surge. These experiences illustrated underlying social processes that are always at play as clinicians integrate information from various sources, including research and published guidelines, with their own tacit knowledge to develop shared yet personal approaches to practice. In this article, we provide a narrative account of personal experience during the COVID-19 surge. We draw on the concept of mindlines as developed by Gabbay and Le May as a conceptual framework for interpreting that experience from the standpoint of how early information from research and guidelines was drawn on and transformed in the course of day-to-day struggle with the crisis in New York City emergency rooms. Finally, briefly referencing the challenges to conventional models of healthcare knowledge creation and translation through research and guideline production posed by COVID-19 crisis, we offer a provisional perspective on current and future developments.

On crowns, caravans and windmills: Commentary on an essay by Turcotte P., et al.

Patient-oriented research (POR) is a trend that has emerged over several decades and is particularly prominent in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. It involves patient and other stakeholder participation in the planning, conduct and dissemination of biomedical and health services research and it can be seen as a form of public participation and engagement in activities that affect the lives and well-being of communities. Criticisms of POR revolve around its susceptibility to tokenistic treatment of patient participants and paternalistic dominance of the research agenda by professional researchers, academics and clinicians. This commentary addresses one such critique by situating the POR agenda within the challenges and dilemmas faced by the health-related research enterprise over the past 30 years. It will explore the interface between POR, community activism and community-based participatory research. The contextual importance of the COVID-19 pandemic experience is stressed. The commentary will particularly focus on the US-based Patient Centred Outcomes Research Institute, its origins within a movement to enhance emphasis on publicly funded comparative effectiveness research, and its more recent evolution in the direction of community empowerment in POR.

Evidence-based medicine and problem based learning a critical re-evaluation.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been the subject of controversy since it was introduced in 1992. However, it has yet to be critically examined as an alternative paradigm for medical education, which is how it was proposed. This commentary examines EBM on the terms on which it was originally advanced and within the context that gave rise to it, the problem-based learning (PBL) environment at McMaster University in the 1970s and 80s. The EBM educational prescription is revealed to be aligned with the information processing psychology (IPP) model of learning through acquisition of general problem solving skills that characterized the early McMaster version of PBL. The IPP model has been identified in the literature as discordant with an alternative, constructivist, model that emerged at Maastricht University in the Netherlands over the subsequent period. Strengths and weaknesses of EBM are identified from the standpoint of the underlying cognitive theories. Principles are proposed with which to guide an educationally viable approach to learning and teaching the valuable skills included within the original EBM formula.

From MARS to MAGIC: The remarkable journey through time and space of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation initiative.

For over 30 years, "evidence-based" clinical guidelines remained entrenched in an oversimplified, design-based, framework for rating the strength of evidence supporting clinical recommendations. The approach frequently equated the rating of evidence with that of the recommendations themselves. "Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)" has emerged as a proposed antidote to obsolete guideline methodology. GRADE sponsors and collaborators are in the process of attempting to amplify and extend the framework to encompass implementation and adaptation of guidelines, above and beyond the evaluation and rating of clinical research. Alternative schemes and models for such extensions are beginning to appear. This commentary reviews the strengths and weaknesses of GRADE with reference to other recent critiques. It considers the GRADE Working Group's "evidence-to-decision" extension of the evidence rating framework, together with proposed alternatives. It identifies pitfalls of the GRADE system's cooptation of relational processes necessary to the interpretation and uptake of recommendations that properly belong to end-users. It also identifies dangers inherent in blurring important boundaries between clinical and policy applications of guidelines. Finally, it addresses criticisms regarding the lack of a theoretical framework supporting the different facets of the GRADE approach and proposes a social constructivist orientation to clinical guideline development and use. Recommendations are offered to potential guideline developers and users regarding how to draw upon the strengths of the GRADE framework without succumbing to its pitfalls.

Stakeholder-Driven Quality Improvement: A Compelling Force for Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Clinical practice guideline development should be driven by rigorous methodology, but what is less clear is where quality improvement enters the process: should it be a priority-guiding force, or should it enter only after recommendations are formulated? We argue for a stakeholder-driven approach to guideline development, with an overriding goal of quality improvement based on stakeholder perceptions of needs, uncertainties, and knowledge gaps. In contrast, the widely used topic-driven approach, which often makes recommendations based only on randomized controlled trials, is driven by epidemiologic purity and evidence rigor, with quality improvement a downstream consideration. The advantages of a stakeholder-driven versus a topic-driven approach are highlighted by comparisons of guidelines for otitis media with effusion, thyroid nodules, sepsis, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. These comparisons show that stakeholder-driven guidelines are more likely to address the quality improvement needs and pressing concerns of clinicians and patients, including understudied populations and patients with multiple chronic conditions. Conversely, a topic-driven approach often addresses "typical" patients, based on research that may not reflect the needs of high-risk groups excluded from studies because of ethical issues or a desire for purity of research design.

Teaching by (bad) example: what a confused attempt to "advance" EBM reveals about its underlying problems: commentary on Jenicek, M. (2015). Do we need another discipline in medicine? From epidemiology and evidence-based medicine to cognitive medicine and medical thinking. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 21:1028-1034.

Professor Jenicek's paper is confused in that his proposal to 'integrate' what he means by 'evidence-based scientific theory and cognitive approaches to medical thinking' actually embodies a contradiction. But, although confused, he succeeds in teaching us more about the EBM debate than those who seem keen to forge ahead without addressing the underlying epistemological problems that Jenicek brings to our attention. Fundamental questions about the relationship between evidence, knowledge and reason still require resolution if we are to see a genuine advance in this debate.

Combining training in knowledge translation with quality improvement reduced 30-day heart failure readmissions in a community hospital: a case study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Training programmes in evidence-based practice (EBP) frequently fail to translate their content into practice change and care improvement. We linked multidisciplinary training in EBP to an initiative to decrease 30-day readmissions among patients admitted to a community teaching hospital for heart failure (HF). METHODS: Hospital staff reflecting all services and disciplines relevant to care of patients with HF attended a 3-day innovative capacity building conference in evidence-based health care over a 3-year period beginning in 2009. The team, facilitated by a conference faculty member, applied a knowledge-to-action model taught at the conference. We reviewed published research, profiled our population and practice experience, developed a three-phase protocol and implemented it in late 2010. We tracked readmission rates, adverse clinical outcomes and programme cost. RESULTS: The protocol emphasized patient education, medication reconciliation and transition to community-based care. Senior administration approved a full-time nurse HF coordinator. Thirty-day HF readmissions decreased from 23.1% to 16.4% (adjusted OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.42-0.97) during the year following implementation. Corresponding rates in another hospital serving the same population but not part of the programme were 22.3% and 20.2% (adjusted OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.71-1.08). Adherence to mandated HF quality measures improved. Following a start-up cost of $15 000 US, programme expenses balanced potential savings from decreased HF readmissions. CONCLUSION: Training of a multidisciplinary hospital team in use of a knowledge translation model, combined with ongoing facilitation, led to implementation of a budget neutral programme that decreased HF readmissions.

Environmental factors and their association with emergency department hand hygiene compliance: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Hand hygiene is effective in preventing healthcare-associated infections. Environmental conditions in the emergency department (ED), including crowding and the use of non-traditional patient care areas (ie, hallways), may pose barriers to hand hygiene compliance. We examined the relationship between these environmental conditions and proper hand hygiene. METHODS: This was a single-site, observational study. From October 2013 to January 2014, trained observers recorded hand hygiene compliance among staff in the ED according to the World Health Organization 'My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene'. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the relationship between environmental conditions and hand hygiene compliance, while controlling for important covariates (eg, hand hygiene indication, glove use, shift, etc). RESULTS: A total of 1673 hand hygiene opportunities were observed. In multivariable analyses, hand hygiene compliance was significantly lower when the ED was at its highest level of crowding than when the ED was not crowded and lower among hallway care areas than semiprivate care areas (OR=0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55; OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Unique environmental conditions pose barriers to hand hygiene compliance in the ED setting and should be considered by ED hand hygiene improvement efforts. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of these environmental conditions on actual rates of infection transmission.

'All the King's horses . . .': the problematical fate of born-again evidence-based medicine: commentary on Greenhalgh, T., Snow, R., Ryan, S., Rees, S., and Salisbury, H. (2015) six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BioMed Central Medicine, 13:200.

The phrase 'evidence-based medicine (EBM)' is being used by both EBM advocates and adversaries to broadly denote the production and use of clinical research throughout the healthcare system. Recently, this trend was joined by a call for a general expansion and rebirth of EBM to encompass a diverse range of healthcare activities otherwise corresponding to person-centred care. The call asserts that EBM is to blame for anti-patient biases within clinical practice and in policy and public health domains. Effective critique of either EBM or of the healthcare system requires that EBM itself be properly identified as a research literacy movement that grew out of clinical epidemiology of the 1970's and 1980's. We demonstrate the ineffectiveness of inappropriately targeted critiques of healthcare under the banner of born-again EBM.We identify the strengths and weaknesses of EBM as an educational movement drawing on the concept of literacy associated with the Brazilian educator Paolo Freire. We consider the relationship of EBM to clinical epidemiology and conclude that it cannot fruitfully divorce itself from the latter.We briefly consider existing precedents for philosophically sound conceptual platforms for advocacy of person-centred healthcare and broad based critique of the healthcare system including relationship-centred care. We conclude that traditional EBM, as a framework for research literacy training of both clinicians and policy makers, must continue to play a subsidiary role within an expanding patient-centred healthcare system and that advocacy efforts on behalf of patient voice and engagement are best pursued unencumbered by subsidiary agendas.

Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Health Care (TEACH) 2009-2014: Building Evidence-Based Capacity within Health Care Provider Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines, prediction tools, and computerized decision support (CDS) are underutilized outside of research contexts, and conventional teaching of evidence-based practice (EBP) skills fails to change practitioner behavior. Overcoming these challenges requires traversing practice, policy, and implementation domains. In this article, we describe a program's conceptual design, the results of institutional participation, and the program's evolution. Next steps include integration of instruction in principles of CDS. CONCEPTUAL MODEL: Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Health Care (TEACH) is a multidisciplinary annual conference series involving on- and off-site trainings and facilitation within health care provider organizations (HPOs). Separate conference tracks address clinical policy and guideline development, implementation science, and foundational EBP skills. The implementation track uses a model encompassing problem delineation, identifying knowing-doing gaps, synthesizing evidence to address those gaps, adapting guidelines for local use, assessing implementation barriers, measuring outcomes, and sustaining evidence use. Training in CDS principles is an anticipated component within this track. Within participating organizations, the program engages senior administration, middle management, and frontline care providers. On-site care improvement projects serve as vehicles for developing ongoing, sustainable capabilities. TEACH facilitators conduct on-site workshops to enhance project development, integration of stakeholder engagement and decision support. Both on- and off-site components emphasize narrative skills and shared decision-making. EXPERIENCE: Since 2009, 430 participants attended TEACH conferences. Delegations from five centers attended an initial series of three conferences. Improvement projects centered on stroke care, hospital readmissions, and infection control. Successful implementation efforts were characterized by strong support of senior administration, involvement of a broad multidisciplinary constituency within the organization, and on-site facilitation on the part of TEACH faculty. Involvement of nursing management at the senior faculty level led to increased presence of nursing and other disciplines at subsequent conferences. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach to on- and off-site training and facilitation may lead to enhanced use of research to improve the quality of care within HPOs. Such training may provide valuable contextual grounding for effective use of CDS within such organizations.

'One mission accomplished, more important ones remain': commentary on Every-Palmer, S., Howick, J. (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of†Evaluation in†Clinical†Practice, 20 (6), 908-914.

Every-Palmer and Howick suggest that evidence-based medicine (EBM) is failing in its mission because of contamination of research by manufacturer and researcher-motivated bias and self-interest. They fail to define that mission and to distinguish between the EBM movement and the research enterprise it was developed to critique. An educational movement, EBM accomplished its mission to simplify and package clinical epidemiological concepts in a form accessible to clinical learners. Its wide adoption within educational circles fostered critical literacy among several generations of practitioners. Illumination of bias, subterfuge and incomplete reporting of research has been a strength of EBM. Increased uptake and use of clinical research within the health care system properly defines the failing mission that eludes Every-Palmer and Howick. Responsibility for failure to make progress towards its achievement is shared by virtually all relevant streams within the system, including policy, clinical guideline development, educational movements and the development of approaches to evidence synthesis. Discordance between the epistemological premises pervading today's research and health care community and the complex social processes that ultimately determine research use constitutes an important factor that must be addressed as part of a remedy. Enhanced emphasis on and demonstration of alternative approaches to research such as realism and realist synthesis and the momentum towards development of a learning health care system hold promise as guideposts for the rapidly evolving health care environment.

Relationship-centred care: antidote, guidepost or blind alley? The epistemology of 21st century health care.

Contemporary health care is increasing in complexity and lacks a unifying understanding of epistemology, methodology and goals. Lack of conceptual consistency in concepts such as 'patient-centred care' (PCC) typifies system-wide discordance. We contrast the fragmented descriptions of PCC and related tools to its own origins in the writings of Balint and to a subsequent construct, relationship-centred care (RCC). We identify the explicit and elaborated connection between RCC and a defined epistemological foundation as a distinguishing feature of the construct and we demonstrate that this makes possible the recognition of alignments between RCC and independently developed constructs. Among these, we emphasize Schon's reflective practice, Nonaka's theory of organizational knowledge creation and the research methodology of realist synthesis. We highlight the relational principles common to these domains and to their common epistemologies and illustrate unsatisfying consequences of adherence to less adequate epistemological frameworks such as positivism. We offer RCC not as an 'antidote' to the dilemmas identified at the outset but as an example that illuminates the value and importance of explicit identification of the premises and assumptions underlying approaches to improvement of the health care system. We stress the potential value of identifying epistemological affinities across otherwise disparate fields and disciplines.

How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature.

Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates of magnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.