Search results

Legal standards that allow teens to make health care decisions, or any important decisions, must account for the contingency and variability of minors’ capacity. Traditional law denied minors’ legal authority to make any decisions, giving all power to parents. This rule goes too far; the Supreme Court has held that minors have constitutionally protected autonomy-based rights, and modern views about adolescence are inconsistent with the rule. The question is how and where to draw lines.

Legal standards are based on minors’ evolving maturity, policy favoring decisions that follow medical advice, and policy supporting parental authority. This paper uses four hard cases to show how these considerations factor into legal rules.

This paper aims to examine complex clinical decision‐making processes in trauma center units of hospitals in terms of the immediate impact of complexity on the medical team involved in the trauma event.

It is proposed to develop a model of decision‐making processes in trauma events that uses a Bayesian classifier model with convolution and deconvolution operators to study real‐time observed trauma data for the decision‐making process under tremendous stress. The objective is to explore and explain physicians' decision‐making processes under stress and time constraints during actual trauma events from the perspective of complexity.

Because physicians have blurred information and cues that are tainted by random environmental noise during injury‐related events, they must de‐blur (de‐convolute) the collected data to find a best approximation of the real data for decision‐making processes.

The data collection and analysis is innovative and the permission to access raw audio and video data from an active trauma center will differentiate this study from similar studies that rely on simulations, self report and case study approaches.

Clinical decision makers in trauma centers are placed in situations that are increasingly complex, making decision‐making and problem‐solving processes multifaceted.

The science of complex adaptive systems, together with human judgment theories, provide important concepts and tools for responding to the challenges of healthcare this century and beyond.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounts of Swedish cardiologists concerning patient involvement in consultations for atrial fibrillation (AF). The questions were: how cardiologists handle and provide scope for patient involvement in medical consultations regarding AF treatment and how cardiologists describe their familiarity with shared decision-making.

A descriptive study was designed. Ten interviews with cardiologists at four Swedish hospitals were held, and a qualitative content analysis was performed on the collected data.

The analysis shows cardiologists’ accounts of persuasive practice, protective practice, professional role and medical craftsmanship when it comes to patient involvement and shared decision-making. The term “shared decision-making” implies a concept of not only making one decision but also ensuring that it is finalised with a satisfactory agreement between both parties involved, the patient as well as the cardiologist. In order for the idea of patient involvement to be fulfilled, the two parties involved must have equal power, which can never actually be guaranteed.

Methodologically, this paper reflects the special contribution that can be made by the research design of descriptive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to reveal and understand cardiologists’ perspectives on patient involvement and participation in medical consultation and shared decision-making. The utility of this kind of analysis is to find what cardiologists said and how they arrived at their understanding about patient involvement. Accordingly, there is no quantification in this type of research.

Cardiologists should prioritise patient involvement and participation in decision-making regarding AF treatment decisions in consultations when trying to meet the request of patient involvement.

Theoretically, the authors have learned that the patient involvement and shared decision-making requires the ability to see patients as active participants in the medical consultation process.

Medical uncertainty is recognized as a critical issue in the sociology of diagnosis and medical sociology more generally, but a neglected focus of this concern is the question of patient decision making. Using a mixed methods approach that draws upon autoethnographic accounts and third-party interviews, we aim to illuminate the dilemmas of patient decision making in the face of uncertainty. How do patients and supportive caregivers go about navigating this state of affairs? What types of patient–doctor/healthcare professional relationships hinder or enhance effective patient decision making? These are the themes we explore in this study by following patients through the sequence of experiencing symptoms, seeking a diagnosis, evaluating treatment protocols, and receiving treatments. In general, three genres of culturally available narratives are revealed in the data: strategic, technoluxe, and unbearable health narratives.

The purpose of this study is to examine the rostering practices and work experiences of medical scientists at four health services in the Australian public healthcare sector. There are over 16,000 medical scientists (AIHW, 2019) in Australia responsible for carrying out pathology testing to help save the lives of thousands of patients every day. However, there are systemic shortages of medical scientists largely due to erratic rostering practices and workload issues. The purpose of this paper is to integrate evidence-based human resource management (EBHRM), the LAMP model and HR analytics to enhance line manager decision-making on rostering to support the wellbeing of medical scientists.

Using a qualitative methodological approach, the authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with managers/directors and nine focus groups with 53 medical scientists, making a total 74 participants from four large public hospitals in Australia.

Across four health services, manual systems of rostering and management decisions do not meet the requirements of the enterprise agreement (EA) and impact negatively on the wellbeing of medical scientists in pathology services. The authors found no evidence of the systematic approach of the organisations and line managers to implement the LAMP model to understand the root causes of rostering challenges and negative impact on employees. Moreover, there was no evidence of sophisticated use of HR analytics or EBHRM to support line managers' decision-making regarding mitigation of rostering related challenges such as absenteeism and employee turnover.

The authors contribute to HRM theory by integrating EBHRM, the LAMP model (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2007) and HR analytics to inform line management decision-making. The authors advance understandings of how EBHRM incorporating the LAMP model and HR analytics can provide a systematic and robust process for line managers to make informed decisions underpinned by data.

To understand how parents make the decision to implant their deaf young children with cochlear implants, focusing specifically on the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma.

I conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with the hearing parents or parent of children with cochlear implants. In all but two families I interviewed the primary caretaker which in all cases was a mother. In the remaining two interviews, I interviewed both parents together. Because of the relative scarcity of families with children with cochlear implants, and the difficulty in connecting with these families, I used a convenience sample, and I did not stratify it in any way. The only requirement for parents to be interviewed is that they had at least one deaf child who had been implanted with at least one cochlear implant. Although this is a small sample, the findings are transferable to other families with the same sociodemographic characteristics as those in my study.

Parents in the study focused on three key concepts: normality, risk analysis, and being a good parent. Dispositional factors such as the need to be “normal” and the desire for material success for one's children appeared to moderate the cost-benefit calculus.

This interview project concentrated on hearing families who had implanted their deaf children with cochlear implants; it does not include culturally Deaf parents who choose to use American Sign Language (ASL) with their Deaf children. Understanding how Deaf families understand the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma would shed light on how a distinctly “abnormal” group (by a statistical conception of normal) – ASL-using Deaf people-explain normality in the face of using a non-typical communication method. One can learn a lot by studying the absence of a phenomena, in this case, not implanting children with cochlear implants. It is possible that the existential threat felt by some Deaf people, specifically the demographic problem presented by cochlear implants, led Deaf educators or parents to resist being the subject of research.

Overwhelmingly the sample was female, and white. Only two participants were male, and none of the participants were non-white. The lack of diversity in the sample does not necessarily reflect a lack of diversity of children receiving cochlear implants. Medicaid, which disproportionately covers families of color, covers cochlear implants in most cases, so low SES/racial intersectionality should not have affected the lack of diversity in the sample. However, the oral schools are all private pay, with few scholarships available, so low SES/racial intersectionality in the sampling universe (all children who attend oral schools), may have played a part in the lack of racial diversity within the sample.

Parents in this study were very specific about the fact that they believed cochlear implants would lead to academic, professional, and personal success. They weaved narratives of normality, medicalization, and stigma through their stories. Normality is an important lens from which to see stories about disability and ability, as well as medical correction. As medical science continues to advance, more and more conditions will become medicalized, leading to more and more people taking advanced medical treatments to address problems that were previously considered “problems with living” that are now considered “medical problems” that can be treated with advanced science.

This chapter's contribution to the sociological cochlear implant literature is it's weaving of narratives about normality, stigma, and medicalization into parental stories about the cochlear implant decision-making process. Most literature about the cochlear implant decision-making process focus on cost-benefit analysis, and logical decision-making processes, whereas this paper focuses on decision-making factors stemming from bias, emotions, and values.

Purpose: We analyze how medical providers use accountability processes or the regulatory means through which individuals hold themselves or others accountable to social norms, to uphold their medical authority. We use the case of trans medicine because in this medical domain, providers often have little to no expertise and few are trained specifically in delivering trans medicine or working with trans patients. As a result, providers experience uncertainty and are left without the typical tools and expertise on which they depend in most other areas of medical decision-making.

Design/methodology/approach: We conducted in-depth interviews with 23 medical providers and observations of transgender healthcare conferences in the United States between 2012 and 2015.

Findings: Our work offers insight into the provider side of patient-provider encounters and medical decision-making in gender minority health. The first accountability strategy providers employed was to invoke the language of evidence as a method to maintain their authority, in spite of the paucity of scientific evidence that undergirds this emergent medical domain. The second strategy was to mandate compliance by holding trans people accountable to the expectation of acquiescing to medical authority.

Originality/value: We contribute to the scholarship on gender minority health by examining how high power actors use accountability processes to restore order in interactions with trans and nonbinary patients. We demonstrate how enforcement to expectations through accountability processes is a plausible, though oft-overlooked, dimension of health inequalities.

The aim of this paper is to contribute a conceptualization of the information and communication needs of medical tourists from Western countries in an Asian health care context.

Multi-phase, semi-structured, in-depth interviews and observations were conducted with 27 multi-source informants who have communication experience in the international healthcare setting.

Multi-level information provision should be used to address communicative incongruence in Asian healthcare provider – Western patient encounters as was self-reported by the participants and observed by authors. The use of an informative communication model is proposed in order to facilitate interaction and the effective transfer of information with Western patients to overcome negative, underlying emotions and enable autonomous decision making by the patients.

This exploratory study is focused on Western patients and Asian practitioners in Thailand. Future research in other countries and with patients from other geographical areas could expand to generalize findings.

Fostering information sharing with Western patients by using an integrative communication model can improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes. The need for developing and implementing these improved practices for communicating with Western patients is reflected by the healthcare industry's current developmental trends helping to lead to a future of health service internationalization.

This is the first empirical study to provide insights concerning the communication needs and coping strategies of Western patients with Asian doctors in developing countries.

This chapter aims to provide an overview of the ethical framework and decision-making in clinical dementia research, and to analyze and discuss the ethical challenges and issues that can arise when conducting clinical dementia research.

Informed consent is the most scrutinized and controversial aspect of clinical research ethics. In clinical dementia research, assessing decision-making capacity may be challenging as the nature and progress of each disease influences decision-making capacity in diverse ways. Persons with dementia represent a vulnerable population deserving special attention when developing, implementing, and evaluating the informed consent process. In this chapter, particular attention will be given to vulnerability categories and how these influence decision-making capacity. Ethical frameworks with a pragmatic contour and implication are needed to protect vulnerable patients from potential harms and ensure their optimal participation in clinical dementia research.

In addition, this chapter analyses important ethical challenges and issues in clinical dementia research. If handled thoughtfully, they would not pose insuperable barriers to research. But if they are ignored, they could slow the research process, alienate potential study subjects and cause harm to research participants. Ethical considerations in research involving persons with dementia primarily concern the representation of the interests of the participants with dementia and protection of their vulnerabilities and rights.

A core set of ethical questions and recommendations are drawn to aid researchers, institutional review boards and potential research participants in the process of participating in clinical dementia research.

Procedures can be categorized as certain surgeries based on their necessity and outcomes while others are classified as uncertain surgeries based on these areas. To account for this variance, policies such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) call for health care providers to engage in shared decision making (SDM) with patients to ensure they are informed of treatment options and asked their preferences. Yet, gender may influence the decision-making process. Thus, this project examines the decision process and how gender impacts patients’ participation in decisions to undergo certain surgeries compared to uncertain surgeries.

This research project analyzed data from the National Survey of Medical Decisions 2006–2007 which surveyed the medical decisions of US residents 40 and older.

First, the data reveals that women felt more informed having uncertain surgeries compared to men. Second, patients were less likely asked their preference for surgery when undergoing certain surgeries compared to uncertain surgeries. Third, compared to men, women having uncertain surgeries were less likely to make the final decision to have surgery, compared to sharing the final decision with health care providers.

Due to the sample size, this project could not perform three-way interactions between gender, race, and surgery type.

Gender influences the level patients feel informed having uncertain surgeries. Though policy calls for SDM, health care providers are less likely to ask patients their preference for surgery regarding certain surgeries, relative to uncertain surgeries. Gender impacts the final decision-making process regarding whether patients should have uncertain surgeries.