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 contexts is a highly complex social practice, involving different forms of relationships between trust and reasons for trust: based on reasons, and not based on reasons; based on reasons that are easily accessible to reflection and others that are not. In this paper, we focus on what it means to have reasons to trust colleagues in an established clinical team, collectively supporting or carrying out every day clinical decision-making. We show two important points about these reasons, firstly, they are not sought or given in advance of a situation of epistemic dependence, but are established within these situations; secondly they are implicit in the sense of being contained or nested within other actions that are not directly about trusting another person. The processes of establishing these reasons are directly about accomplishing a task, and indirectly about trusting someone else's expertise or competence. These processes establish a space of reasons within which what it means to have reasons for trust, or not, gains a meaning and traction in these team-work settings. Based on a qualitative study of decision-making in image assisted diagnosis and treatment of a 123Synthese complex disease called pulmonary hypertension (PH), we show how an intersubjective framework, or 'space of reasons' is established through team members forging together a common way of identifying and dealing with evidence. In dealing with images as a central diagnostic tool, this also involves a common way of looking at the images, a common mode or style of perception. These frameworks are developed through many iterations of adjusting and calibrating interpretations in relation to those of others, establishing what counts as evidence, and ranking different kinds of evidence. Implicit trust is at work throughout this process. Trusting the expertise of others in clinical decision-making teams occurs while the members of the team are busy on other tasks, most importantly, building up a framework of common modes of seeing, and common ways of identifying and assessing evidence emerge. It is only in this way that trusting or mistrusting becomes meaningful in these contexts, and that a framework for epistemic dependence is established.

Industry Technicians Embedded in Clinical Teams: Impacts on Medical Knowledge

“…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.…”

“…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 .…”

Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations

“…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.…”

Systematic Organization of COVID-19 Data Supported by the Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework

“…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.…”