Trisha Greenhalgh and colleagues argue that, although evidence based medicine has had many benefits, it has also had some negative unintended consequences. They offer a preliminary agenda for the movement’s renaissance, refocusing on providing useable evidence that can be combined with context and professional expertise so that individual patients get optimal treatment

There is much variation in the implementation of the best available evidence into clinical practice. These gaps between evidence and practice are often a result of multiple individual decisions. When making a decision, there is so much potentially relevant information available, it is impossible to know or process it all (so called ‘bounded rationality’). Usually, a limited amount of information is selected to reach a sufficiently satisfactory decision, a process known as satisficing. There are two key processes used in decision making: System 1 and System 2. System 1 involves fast, intuitive decisions; System 2 is a deliberate analytical approach, used to locate information which is not instantly recalled. Human beings unconsciously use System 1 processing whenever possible because it is quicker and requires less effort than System 2. In clinical practice, gaps between evidence and practice can occur when a clinician develops a pattern of knowledge, which is then relied on for decisions using System 1 processing, without the activation of a System 2 check against the best available evidence from high quality research. The processing of information and decision making may be influenced by a number of cognitive biases, of which the decision maker may be unaware. Interventions to encourage appropriate use of System 1 and System 2 processing have been shown to improve clinical decision making. Increased understanding of decision making processes and common sources of error should help clinical decision makers to minimize avoidable mistakes and increase the proportion of decisions that are better.

Margaret McCartney and colleagues argue that new models of evidence synthesis and shared decision making are needed to accelerate a move from guideline driven care to individualised care

Summary In patients at high risk of NSAID‐associated serious upper gastrointestinal complications, gastroprotection with misoprostol or a proton pump inhibitor should be considered. Only misoprostol, 800 µg/day, has been shown to reduce serious upper gastrointestinal complications in a large clinical outcome trial. The benefit of Helicobacter pylori eradication in reducing NSAID‐associated gastrointestinal toxicity is controversial, and routine testing for and eradication of H. pylori in NSAID users are not currently advised. The gastrointestinal safety of rofecoxib and celecoxib has been assessed in large clinical outcome trials which, on first analysis, show benefits over non‐selective NSAIDs in the incidence of serious upper gastrointestinal complications. However, longer term gastrointestinal data from the celecoxib study (CLASS) and cardiovascular adverse event data from the rofecoxib study (VIGOR) have questioned the risk–benefit profile of these new drugs and, until they are better understood, it seems sensible not to use them routinely in large numbers of individuals. The gastrointestinal safety of meloxicam and etodolac has not been adequately assessed in such trials. Therefore, evidence for their use instead of non‐selective NSAIDs, or instead of celecoxib or rofecoxib, is not robust.

Increasingly more responsive and accountable health care systems are demanded, which is characterized by transparency and explicit demonstration of competence by health care providers and the systems in which they work. This study aimed to establish measures of oral health for transparent and explicit reporting of routine data to facilitate more patient-centered and prevention-oriented oral health care. To accomplish this, an intermediate objective was to develop a comprehensive list of topics that a range of stakeholders would perceive as valid, important, and relevant for describing oral health and oral health care. A 4-stage approach was used to develop the list of topics: 1) scoping of literature and its appraisal, 2) a meeting of experts, 3) a 2-stage Delphi process (online), and 4) a World Café discussion. The aim was to create consensus through structured conversations via a range of stakeholders (general dental practitioners, patients, insurers, and policy makers) from the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Hungary, and Denmark. The study was part of the ADVOCATE project, and it resulted in a list of 48 topics grouped into 6 clusters: 1) access to dental care, 2) symptoms and diagnosis, 3) health behaviors, 4) oral treatments, 5) oral prevention, and 6) patient perception. All topics can be measured, as they all have a data source with defined numerators and denominators. This study is the first to establish a comprehensive and multiple-stakeholder consented topic list designed for guiding the implementation of transparent and explicit measurement of routine data of oral health and oral health care. Successful measurement within oral health care systems is essential to facilitate learning from variation in practice and outcomes within and among systems, and it potentiates improvement toward more patient-centered and prevention-oriented oral health care.

After more than 40 years of research and policy endorsement, adoption of shared decision making into routine practice has been remarkably slow. Neal Maskrey blames a lack of focus on doctors’ broader communication skills

Healthcare professionals' clinical practice is steeped in both compassion and technical aspects of care, yet data on how to improve the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited(1). Two of the cornerstones of modern clinical practice -evidence-based medicine and the teaching of consultation skills -lack utility in making decisions with and for patients who have multimorbidity, especially in time-pressurised, metrics-dominated clinical environments. We have developed a new model which supports the translation of population-based, evidence-based medicine and complex consultation models to simpler, natural conversations about care appropriate for and agreed with individual patients.

BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) involves the formation of a collaborative partnership between the patient and clinician combining both of their expertise in order to benefit decision making. In order for clinicians to be able to carry out this skilled task, they require practice. Virtual reality, in the form of a virtual patient, could offer a potential method of facilitating this.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create a virtual patient that simulated a primary care consultation, affording the opportunity to practice SDM. A second aim was to involve patients in the design of a virtual patient simulation and report the process of the design.MethodsWe employed a multistep design process drawing on patient and expert involvement.ResultsA virtual patient, following a narrative style, was built, which allows a user to practice and receive feedback; both clinical and communication skills are required for the simulation. The patient group provided multiple insights, which the academic team had overlooked. They pertained mostly to issues concerning the patient experience.ConclusionsIt is possible to design a virtual patient that allows a learner to practice their ability to conduct SDM. Patient input into the design of virtual patient simulations can be a worthwhile activity.