Diagnostic decision making: The last refuge for general practitioners?
AbstractNurses and pharmacists gained the right to prescribe as independent prescribers in the UK in 2007. Independent prescribers are responsible for the initial assessment of patients with diagnosed and undiagnosed conditions. Public policy discourse and the views expressed by health care professionals have conceptualised diagnostic decision making as being at a 'higher level' and more difficult than prescribing decision making. This paper presents five themes related to this premise. Firstly diagnostic decision making is put into the broader context of clinical reasoning which underpins all types of clinical decisions including both diagnostic and prescribing decisions. Secondly, the nature of diagnostic decision making is discussed as to whether it is indeed separable from the prescribing decision making process. Thirdly, the conception that all diagnostic decisions are inherently more difficult is contested when difficulty in decision making is more appropriately applied to all types of clinical decisions which involve greater complexity and uncertainty. The fourth topic concerns whether this perception of diagnoses as being more difficult is a response by the medical profession to the threat of independent prescribing, reflecting their wish to maintain professional power and dominance over other professions. The final section considers how expertise in diagnoses could be developed in nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers. To develop their expertise in making accurate diagnoses, medicine uses the model of learning basic science mechanisms followed by engagement with patient clinical problems followed by years of clinical experience. However this may be just one way of achieving diagnostic expertise. Other approaches, such as the use of deliberate practice and feedback, may be more suitable to the diverse range of knowledge and experiences of nurse and pharmacist prescribers.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 73 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.