The scope and conventions of evidence‐based medicine need to be widened to deal with “too much medicine”

In order that evidence‐based medicine can prevent “too much medicine”, it has to provide evidence in support of “gold standard” findings for use as diagnostic criteria, on which the assessment of other diagnostic tests and the outcomes of randomized controlled trials depend. When the results of such gold standard tests are numerical, cut‐off points have to be positioned, also based on evidence, to identify those in whom offering a treatment can be justified. Such a diagnosis depends on eliminating conditions that mimic the one to be treated. The distributions of the candidate gold standard test results in those with and without the required outcome of treatment are then used with Bayes rule to create curves that show the probabilities of the outcome with and without treatment. It is these curves that are used to identify a cut‐off point for offering a treatment to a patient and also to inform the patient's decision to accept or reject the suggested treatment. This decision is arrived at by balancing the probabilities of beneficial outcomes against the probabilities of harmful outcomes and other costs. The approach is illustrated with data from a randomized controlled trial on treating diabetic albuminuria with an angiotensin receptor blocker to prevent the development of the surrogate end‐point of “biochemical nephropathy”. The same approach can be applied to nonsurrogate outcomes such as death, disability, quality of life, relief of symptoms, and their prevention. Those with treatment‐justifying diagnoses such as “diabetic albuminuria” usually form part of a broader group such as “type 2 diabetes mellitus”. Any of these can be made the subject of evidence‐based differential diagnostic strategies.     

Factors influencing secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers’ clinical reasoning: An interprofessional analysis

In the United Kingdom, pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers are responsible for both the clinical assessment of and prescribing for patients. Prescribing is a complex skill that entails the application of knowledge, skills, and clinical reasoning to arrive at a clinically appropriate decision. Decision-making is influenced and informed by many factors. This study, the first of its kind, explores what factors influence pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers during the process of clinical reasoning. A think-aloud methodology immediately followed by a semi-structured interview was conducted with 11 active nurse and 10 pharmacist independent prescribers working in secondary care. Each participant was presented with validated clinical vignettes for the think-aloud stage. Participants chose the clinical therapeutic areas for the vignettes, based on their self-perceived competencies. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and a constant-comparative approach was used for analysis. Influences on clinical reasoning were broadly categorised into themes: social interaction, intrinsic, and contextual factors. These themes showed that intrinsic, sociocultural, and contextual aspects heavily influenced the clinical reasoning processes of prescribers. For example, prescribers were aware of treatment pathways, but chose to refer patient cases to avoid making the final prescribing decision. Exploration of this behaviour in the interviews revealed that previous experience and attitudes such as confidence and cautiousness associated with responsibility were strong influencers within the decision-making process. In addition, strengthening the professional identity of prescribers could be achieved through collaborative work with interprofessional healthcare teams to orient their professional practice from within the profession. Findings from this study can be used to inform the education, training, and practice of independent prescribers to improve healthcare services by improving their professional and interprofessional development.