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 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.

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.

Eating a larger number of high-salt foods is not associated with short-term risk of acute decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for exacerbation of congestive heart failure have not been consistently validated. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the role of short-term dietary sodium intake in acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: Patients with chronic congestive heart failure presenting to the Emergency Department for either acute decompensated heart failure (cases) or for other reasons (controls) were included in a case-control study. Cases and controls were compared with respect to age, smoking, recent sodium intake, medication nonadherence, coronary artery disease, and hypertension. A food frequency questionnaire was utilized to estimate recent sodium intake, defined as the number of food types consumed in the previous 3 days from the 12 highest-sodium food categories. RESULTS: There were 182 patients enrolled. One patient was excluded due to uncertainty about the primary diagnosis. When adjusted for age, smoking, medication nonadherence, coronary artery disease, and hypertension, acute decompensated heart failure was not associated with short-term dietary sodium intake. The odds ratio for acute decompensated heart failure for each increase in the number of high-sodium food types consumed was 1.1 (95% confidence interval 0.9-1.3; p = 0.3). Acute decompensated heart failure was associated with medication nonadherence, with an odds ratio for decompensation of 2.5 (95% confidence interval 1.2-5.1; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic congestive heart failure who presented to the Emergency Department with acute decompensated heart failure were no more likely to report consuming a greater number of high-sodium foods in the 3 days before than were patients with chronic congestive heart failure who presented with unrelated symptoms. On the other hand, those who presented with acute decompensated heart failure were significantly more likely to report nonadherence with medications.

The marriage of evidence and narrative: scientific nurturance within clinical practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Published elaborations of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have failed to materially integrate the domains of interpersonal sensibility and relationship with tools intended to facilitate attention to biomedical research and knowledge within clinical practice. Furthermore, the elaboration of EBM skills has been confined to a narrow range of clinical research. As a result, crucial tools required to connect much clinically relevant research and practice remain hidden, and explorations of the deeper challenges faced by practitioners in their struggle to integrate sound science and shared clinical action remain elusive. METHODS: We developed a model for scientifically informed, individualized, medical practice and learning that embraces the goals, resources and skills of EBM within a larger framework of practice defined by narrative process: 'attention', 'representation' and 'affiliation'. We drew from published elaborations of EBM, narrative medicine (NM) and the results of a project to develop tools for assessment of the cognitive skills embedded within a practice based EBM domain. RESULTS: Within the resulting model, a tool of representation, whose components are Problem delineation, Actions, Choices and Targets, enables the clinical problem to be delineated and the patient and practitioner perspectives to be concretely defined with reference to four classes of clinical interaction: 'therapy', 'diagnosis', 'prognosis' and 'harm'. As a result, the 'information literacy' skills required to access, evaluate and apply clinical research using electronic resources are well defined but subordinated to shared appreciation of patient need. The model acknowledges the relevance of the full range and scope of scientifically derived medical knowledge. CONCLUSION: A model based on integration of NM and EBM can lead to instructional tools that integrate clinical epidemiological knowledge with enforced consideration of differing patient and practitioner perspectives. It also may inform avenues for qualitative research into the processes through which such differing perspectives can be productively identified and shared.

Subgroup hypotheses: clinician's friend or researcher's fiction?

Researchers and clinicians may be tempted to consider apparent differences in effects of interventions in subgroups of study populations for the purposes of individualizing care or directing subsequent focused research efforts. Such "subgroup hypotheses" have a high propensity of being artifacts of chance and are rarely supported when stringent criteria are applied. Subgroup hypotheses emerging from single trials should rarely if ever be considered for application. This article describes published criteria for evaluating the believability of a subgroup hypothesis and presents a conceptual framework for understanding the principles underlying those criteria. Examples of both failed and validated subgroup hypotheses drawn from emergency medicine research are given.

Tips for teachers of evidence-based medicine: making sense of decision analysis using a decision tree.

Decision analysis is a tool that clinicians can use to choose an option that maximizes the overall net benefit to a patient. It is an explicit, quantitative, and systematic approach to decision making under conditions of uncertainty. In this article, we present two teaching tips aimed at helping clinical learners understand the use and relevance of decision analysis. The first tip demonstrates the structure of a decision tree. With this tree, a clinician may identify the optimal choice among complicated options by calculating probabilities of events and incorporating patient valuations of possible outcomes. The second tip demonstrates how to address uncertainty regarding the estimates used in a decision tree. We field tested the tips twice with interns and senior residents. Teacher preparatory time was approximately 90 minutes. The field test utilized a board and a calculator. Two handouts were prepared. Learners identified the importance of incorporating values into the decision-making process as well as the role of uncertainty. The educational objectives appeared to be reached. These teaching tips introduce clinical learners to decision analysis in a fashion aimed to illustrate principles of clinical reasoning and how patient values can be actively incorporated into complex decision making.

Do workshops in evidence-based practice equip participants to identify and answer questions requiring consideration of clinical research? A diagnostic skill assessment.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires practitioners to identify and formulate questions in response to patient encounters, and to seek, select, and appraise applicable clinical research. A standardized workshop format serves as the model for training of medical educators in these skills. We developed an evaluation exercise to assess the ability to identify and solve a problem requiring the use of targeted skills and administered it to 47 North American junior faculty and residents in various specialties at the close of two short workshops in EBP. Prior to the workshop, subjects reported prior training in EBP and completed a previously validated knowledge test. Our post-workshop exercise differed from the baseline measures and required participants to spontaneously identify a suitable question in response to a simulated clinical encounter, followed by a description of a stepwise approach to answering it. They then responded to successively more explicitly prompted queries relevant to their question. We analyzed responses to identify areas of skill deficiency and potential reasons for these deficiencies. Twelve respondents (26%) initially failed to identify a suitable question in response to the clinical scenario. Ability to choose a suitable question correlated with the ability to connect an original question to an appropriate study design. Prior EBP training correlated with the pretest score but not with performance on our exercise. Overall performance correlated with ability to correctly classify their questions as pertaining to therapy, diagnosis, prognosis, or harm. We conclude that faculty and residents completing standard workshops in EBP may still lack the ability to initiate and investigate original clinical inquiries using EBP skills.

Mapping cognitive overlaps between practice-based learning and improvement and evidence-based medicine: an operational definition for assessing resident physician competence.

PURPOSE: The complex competency labeled practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) incorporates core knowledge in evidence-based medicine (EBM). The purpose of this study was to operationally define a "PBLI-EBM" domain for assessing resident physician competence. METHOD: The authors used an iterative design process to first content analyze and map correspondences between ACGME and EBM literature sources. The project team, including content and measurement experts and residents/fellows, parsed, classified, and hierarchically organized embedded learning outcomes using a literature-supported cognitive taxonomy. A pool of 141 items was produced from the domain and assessment specifications. The PBLI-EBM domain and resulting items were content validated through formal reviews by a national panel of experts. RESULTS: The final domain represents overlapping PBLI and EBM cognitive dimensions measurable through written, multiple-choice assessments. It is organized as 4 subdomains of clinical action: Therapy, Prognosis, Diagnosis, and Harm. Four broad cognitive skill branches (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, and Apply) are subsumed under each subdomain. Each skill branch is defined by enabling skills that specify the cognitive processes, content, and conditions pertinent to demonstrable competence. Most items passed content validity screening criteria and were prepared for test form assembly and administration. CONCLUSIONS: The operational definition of PBLI-EBM competence is based on a rigorously developed and validated domain and item pool, and substantially expands conventional understandings of EBM. The domain, assessment specifications, and procedures outlined may be used to design written assessments to tap important cognitive dimensions of the overall PBLI competency, as given by ACGME. For more comprehensive coverage of the PBLI competency, such instruments need to be complemented with performance assessments.