Suppr超能文献

临床实践中的专业判断(第 3 部分):比强有力的基于证据的医学更好的选择。

Professional judgement in clinical practice (part 3): A better alternative to strong evidence-based medicine.

机构信息

College of Built Environments, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Jun;27(3):612-623. doi: 10.1111/jep.13512. Epub 2020 Dec 4.

Abstract

Parts 1 and 2 in this series of three articles have shown that and how strong evidence-based medicine has neither a coherent theoretical foundation nor creditable application to clinical practice. Because of its core commitment to the discredited positivist tradition it holds both a false concept of scientific knowledge and misunderstandings concerning clinical decision-making. Strong EBM continues attempts to use flawed adjustments to recover from the unsalvageable base view. Paper three argues that a promising solution is at hand if we can manage several modes of inclusion. A modified original, moderate version of EBM continues though usually overshadowed. As definitively laid out by Sackett in the 1990s, clinical decision making is intended to be person-centered, recognizing and integrating multiple modes of evidence and knowledge that have been marginalized: professional experience, illness narratives, and individual patients' values and preferences. Complementary resources are at hand: interpretative understanding and practice, such as philosophical anthropology, hermeneutical phenomenology, complexity theory, and phronetic practices respond to the major problems and open new possibilities. Phronesis is especially important in regard to public decision making. Within part 3 an additional tone necessarily occurs. While most of papers 1, 2, and 3 are written in the classical mode of contrasting the theoretical-logical and empirical evidence offered by contending positions bearing on the decision making and judgement in clinical practice, a shift occurs when considerations move beyond what is possible for clinical practitioners to accomplish. A different, discontinuous level of power operates in the trans-personal realm of instrumental policy, insurance, and hospital management practices. In this social-economic-political-ethical realm what happens in clinical practice today increasingly becomes a matter of what is "done unto" clinical practitioners, of what hampers their professional action and thus care of individual patients and clients.

摘要

这三篇系列文章的第 1 部分和第 2 部分已经表明,基于证据的医学既没有坚实的理论基础,也无法可信地应用于临床实践,尽管它声称自己拥有强大的证据。由于其对已被否定的实证主义传统的核心承诺,它既持有错误的科学知识概念,也对临床决策存在误解。强大的 EBM 继续试图通过有缺陷的调整来从不可挽回的基础观点中恢复。第 3 篇论文认为,如果我们能够管理多种纳入模式,就有一个有希望的解决方案。尽管通常被掩盖,但继续采用经过修正的原始的、温和的 EBM 版本。正如 Sackett 在 20 世纪 90 年代明确阐述的那样,临床决策旨在以人为本,承认并整合已被边缘化的多种证据和知识模式:专业经验、疾病叙述以及个体患者的价值观和偏好。补充资源触手可及:解释性理解和实践,如哲学人类学、解释现象学、复杂性理论和实践智慧,都可以应对主要问题并开辟新的可能性。实践智慧在公共决策方面尤为重要。在第 3 部分中,必然会出现另一种语气。虽然第 1 部分、第 2 部分和第 3 部分的大部分内容都是以对比的方式写成的,即对比在临床实践中的决策和判断方面具有理论逻辑和经验证据的论点,但当考虑超越临床医生能够完成的范围时,就会发生转变。在工具性政策、保险和医院管理实践的人际领域,会出现一种不同的、不连续的权力层次。在这个社会经济政治伦理领域,临床实践中今天发生的事情越来越成为对临床医生的“所作所为”的问题,即对他们的专业行动造成阻碍的问题,从而影响到个体患者和客户的护理。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验