Background
Most existing models of clinical decision-making involve making a diagnosis and satisfying oneself that the patient is in the
‘right place at the right time’ [
1]. Patient management in the contemporary health care environment is expected to be ‘evidence-based’ and suggests that patient outcomes are enhanced when their management is guided by the best available evidence [
2,
3]. Furthermore it appears that when patient care is evidence based there is the potential for cost savings [
4‐
6].
Undergraduate students are being trained in EBP [
7], however it has been documented that it can be difficult to establish EBP amongst various professions, including chiropractic [
8]. A number of potential barriers to the adoption of EBP in clinical practice have been identified and include; time restrictions, limited access to research studies, poor confidence in skills to identify and critically appraise research, and inadequate support [
9‐
12]. A recent scoping review of chiropractors noted EBP gaps in the areas of assessment of activity limitation, determination of psychosocial factors influencing pain, general health indicators, establishing a prognosis, and exercise prescription. Chiropractors generally believe EBP and research to be important however use of EBP and guideline adherence varies widely [
13]. There remain significant paradigmatic and cultural barriers in chiropractic along with other CAM professions to EBP; obstacles beyond merely the practical or knowledge deficiencies [
14].
This paper seeks to simplify the clinical application of EBP by providing a clinical decision-aid. We use the example of acute or subacute low back pain presentation, since by far, the majority of patients that present to any chiropractic practice do so with spinal pain; be it labelled acute, subacute, chronic, non-specific, biomechanical or non-malignant [
15]. It is important chiropractors realise the importance of adherence to clinical practice guidelines since spinal disorders are consistently within the top ten of the most expensive health care presentations [
16,
17], thus some health system administrators are beginning to actually
require practitioners to practice within clinical frameworks regardless of their profession particularly when third party payers such as insurers are involved [
18].
Here we set out to expand on previously published models for clinical decision-making [
19‐
21]. We feel since the one we present has been useful in an educational context it may assist field practitioners as well.
Models using diagnosis based decision-making must be tempered by the recognition that even experienced clinicians may be unaware of the correctness of their diagnoses at the time they make them [
22‐
24]. Hoffman et al [
21] presented a framework involving an active discourse between practitioner and patient which follows;
“What will happen if we wait and watch? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of these options? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for this patient? Do both patient and practitioner have enough information to make a choice” [
21]? Clinical decision support aids including the one we present assume and ensure use of best available evidence and patient-specific information to enhance patient care. They may encompass computerised alerts and reminders; clinical guidelines; condition-specific order sets; focused patient data reports and summaries; documentation templates; diagnostic support, and contextually relevant reference information [
25].
Evidence based practice (EBP) aims to facilitate the practitioner’s clinical decision making process [
26] and is based upon the premise that patient management should be guided by methodologically robust research findings [
27‐
30]. The ‘three pillars’ or ‘three legged stool’ [
28,
31] of evidence-based practice constitute the philosophical foundation of our model; effectively a ‘social constructivist’ or ‘participatory’ paradigm where clinical reality is ‘constructed’ by the participants; clinician and patient engaging throughout the course of clinical encounters and the care journey [
32]. Clinicians should actually incorporate knowledge from 5 distinct areas into each management decision: empirical evidence, experiential evidence, physiologic principles, patient and professional values, and system features. The relative weight given to each of these areas is not predetermined, but varies from case to case [
33]. It is important to remember everything ‘starts and ends’ with the patient. In our view this is a pragmatic, defendable stance reflective of sensible clinical practice recognising that the very application of EBP itself requires clinician expertise.
All clinicians must be mindful to practice ethically and competently within their own legally allowed
scope of practice. For chiropractors this role is best described as primary
contact rather than primary
care [
34,
35]. The clinicians’ own education, experience and specific expertise, including training at undergraduate and postgraduate level must underpin all clinical decision-making.
We suggest clinicians firstly to refer to evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) or consensus clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relating as closely as possible to the problem of concern in their individual patient. ‘Best evidence’ is contained in a clinical guidelines, thus the clinician may be reasonably confident a robust process has been followed in assessing available evidence to achieve consensus by expert panels [
36]. Clinical practice guidelines are a useful resource for clinicians as they preclude the clinician having to access all the literature, while protecting clinicians from ‘selective citation’. However,
clinical context; does the evidence help one care for
this patient, is then always a ‘value call’ for the clinician [
37,
38].
The strength of a recommendation in a guideline reflects the extent of confidence that desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects [
39,
40], the strength of recommendations are determined by the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies, quality of evidence, variability in values and preferences, and cost [
30,
39,
41].
Modifying this guideline ranking format to be relevant to patient choices could also be useful when providing a patient with their treatment/management options; “Will it help?” 1) Probably: thus most people in the same situation would choose the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not, 2) Possibly: most people in the same situation would want the recommended course of action, but many would not, 3) Maybe: some people would choose the option but many would not, 4) Unlikely: some people may choose the option but most would not. Thus patient consent can be obtained in the context of probability, predictability and reliability of an outcome.
When there is inconclusive non-favourable evidence patients should be advised that this treatment is likely not to be effective and more effective treatments should be recommended where available. Where findings are reported as high and moderate quality negative evidence, patients should be actively advised against the use of this treatment and a more effective alternative should be recommended where available.
Patients’ expectations, goals, values and choices as components of EBP are important drivers of health care systems and technology developments [
42,
43]. It remains critical that the priority of the patient’s right and ability to choose health care that suits their world view and personal preference is not compromised, so long as these choices are informed and reasonable and are not made as a result of coercion, deception or indefensible claims [
44,
45]. Patients have questions;
“What is wrong with me?” “Can you help?” “Is what you do safe?” “What are my options?” “What will happen if I do nothing?” “How much will it cost?” “How long will it take?” [
46]. There are several additional questions the clinician should also ask themselves on behalf of the patient;
“What else could it be?” “Is there anything that doesn’t fit?” and
“Is it possible there is more than one problem?” The patient may well in the chiropractors’ opinion, have biomechanical or functional [
47] spinal ‘lesions’, but what
else might they have [
48,
49]? Clearly, with aging populations, a significant proportion of people will have multiple health issues which will require management decisions including co-management.
Chiropractors in common with all other health professionals have an obligation to provide patients sufficient information to allow them to determine what is for them the best course of management [
50‐
52]. Patients, in the end, not health professionals, determine the actions they will take with respect to their own health and illness, including when, how, and from whom they seek care, and how they pursue the recommendations of their various care providers [
51]. Leask [
53] emphasises information should match people’s conceptual pathways, explain choices and their implications, demonstrate balance, communicate risk in understandable formats and help patients clarify what is important.