2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-017-1475-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implicit trust in clinical decision-making by multidisciplinary teams

Abstract: In clinical practice, decision-making is not performed by individual knowers but by an assemblage of people and instruments in which no one member has full access to every piece of evidence. This is due to decision making teams consisting of members with different kinds of expertise, as well as to organisational and time constraints. This raises important questions for the epistemology of medicine, which is inherently social in this kind of setting, and implies epistemic dependence on others. Trust in these co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This limits opportunities both for independent learning and for dialogic education practices in which subjects work toward a common goal, work as partners. Such dialogic practices are intrinsic to clinical communities of practice, promoting collegial interaction and helping to address knowledge gaps relevant to patient care 4 . Recent work in social epistemology and medical knowledge 5 and the relatively novel conceptualizing of implantable medical device companies as part of a knowledge‐based industry 6 provide a framework for our engagement with this issue.…”
Section: Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This limits opportunities both for independent learning and for dialogic education practices in which subjects work toward a common goal, work as partners. Such dialogic practices are intrinsic to clinical communities of practice, promoting collegial interaction and helping to address knowledge gaps relevant to patient care 4 . Recent work in social epistemology and medical knowledge 5 and the relatively novel conceptualizing of implantable medical device companies as part of a knowledge‐based industry 6 provide a framework for our engagement with this issue.…”
Section: Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In making treatment decisions or arriving at a shared diagnosis, multidisciplinary teams hold a common epistemic purpose that they work toward collectively, sharing expertise and collaborating in a manner that requires teamwork and makes each individual epistemically reliant on others 17 . The aim of such collaborative knowledge practices is often to close gaps in knowledge opened by encountering novel or unexpected situations, such as participating in a procedure that uses new or unfamiliar technology 18 .…”
Section: Clinical Knowledge and Epistemic Communitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As radiologists report remotely in FNQ, their reports are generated from preliminary radiographer/sonographer findings. The levels of agreement suggest that there is a high level of trust between the radiographers/sonographers in this setting 22 . All of those cases had minor discrepancies mainly due to descriptive differences in the teleradiologist versus the radiographer/sonographer findings but with similar pathology agreement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…However, collaboration between scientists from different fields, as well as between scientists and stakeholders of research results (e.g. pharmaceutical companies, clinicians, decision-makers, regulators), is notoriously difficult due to different vocabularies, variable focus on end-use of results, unconnected data management strategies, lack of channels for communication, and a lack of epistemic trust [23]. AOPs provide a basis for harmonized communication and collaboration towards common goals and can be seen as providing a "front page" for overview of KEs representing "abstracts" of indepth research.…”
Section: Interdisciplinary Collaboration To Gain a Complete Overview Of Covid-19mentioning
confidence: 99%