...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice >What does physicians' clinical expertise contribute to oncologic decision‐making? A qualitative interview study
【24h】

What does physicians' clinical expertise contribute to oncologic decision‐making? A qualitative interview study

机译:医生的临床专业知识促成肿瘤决策是什么? 一个定性的面试学习

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background Physicians' clinical expertise forms an exclusive body of competences, which helps them to find the appropriate diagnostics and treatment for each individual patient. Empirical evidence, however, suggests that there is an inverse relationship between the number of years in practice and the quality of care provided by a physician. Knowledge and adherence to professional standards (such as clinical guidelines) are often used as indicators in previous research. Methods Semistructured interviews and the Q method were used for an explorative study on oncologists' views on the interplay between their own clinical expertise, intuition, and the external evidence incorporated in clinical guidelines. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed ad verbatim, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Data analysis shows the complex character of clinical expertise with respect to experience, professional development, and intuition. An irreplaceable role is attributed to personal and bodily experience during the providing of care for a patient. Professional experience becomes important, particularly in those situations that lie out of the focus of “guideline medicine.” Intuition is regarded as having a strong emotional component and helps for deciding which therapeutic option the patient can deal with. Conclusions Using measurable knowledge and adherence to standards as indicators does not account for the complexity of clinical expertise. Other factors, such as the importance of bodily experience and physicians' intuitive knowledge, must be considered, also with respect to the occurrence of treatment biases.
机译:摘要背景医生的临床专业知识形成了独家能力,这有助于他们为每个患者找到适当的诊断和治疗。然而,经验证据表明,实践中的年数与医生提供的护理质量之间存在反比关系。知识和遵守专业标准(如临床指南)通常被用作以前的研究中的指标。方法使用晶体化访谈和Q方法用于对肿瘤学家对其自己的临床专业知识,直觉和临床指南中的外部证据之间相互作用的看法的探索性研究。访谈是录制的,转录的广告逐字,并使用定性内容分析进行分析。结果数据分析显示了经验,专业发展和直觉的临床专业知识的复杂性。在为患者提供护理期间,不可替代的角色归因于个人和身体体验。专业经验变得重要,特别是在那些撒谎的焦点“指南医学”的情况下。直觉被认为具有强烈的情绪组成部分,并有助于确定患者可以处理哪种治疗选择。结论使用可衡量的知识和遵守标准作为指标并未考虑到临床专业知识的复杂性。其他因素,例如身体经历的重要性和医生直观知识,也必须考虑到治疗偏见的发生。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Institute for Ethics and History of MedicineUniversity Medicine GreifswaldGreifswald Germany;

    Institute for Medical Ethics and History of MedicineRuhr‐University BochumBochum Germany;

    Department for Hematology Oncology and Palliative Care St Josef‐HospitalRuhr‐University;

    Institute for Medical Ethics and History of MedicineRuhr‐University BochumBochum Germany;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 临床医学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号