Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H T Davies

Publications and source records attributed to H T Davies.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Developing organizational learning in the NHS.

Learning has been identified as a central concern for a modernized NHS. Continuing professional development has an important role to play in improving learning but there is also a need to pay more attention to collective (organizational) learning. Such learning is concerned with the way organizations build and organize knowledge. Recent emphasis within the NHS has been on the codification of individual and collective knowledge - for example, guidelines and National Service Frameworks. This needs to be balanced by more personalized knowledge management strategies, especially when dealing with innovative services that rely on tacit knowledge to solve problems. Having robust systems for storing and communicating knowledge is only one part of the challenge. It is also important to consider how such knowledge gets used, and how routines become established within organizations that structure the way in which knowledge is deployed. In many organizations these routines favour the adaptive use of knowledge, which helps organizations to achieve incremental improvements to existing practices. However, the development of organizational learning in the NHS needs to move beyond adaptive (single loop) learning, to foster skills in generative (double loop) learning and meta-learning. Such learning leads to a redefinition of the organization's goals, norms, policies, procedures or even structures. This paper argues that moving the NHS in this direction will require attention to the cultural values and structural mechanisms that facilitate organizational learning.

Education, Medical↗
PubMed2001

Understanding screening: requirements for a successful programme.

Screening has generally been successful in identifying those at risk from disease. This success has led to the belief that screening in the general population is always a good thing. However, there are pitfalls which must be avoided if screening programmes are to achieve what is intended for them.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2000

Decision analysis in evidence-based decision making.

Many real world decisions have to be made on a limited evidence base, and clinical decisions are at best problematic. We explored some of the reasons why decision making in health care is so complex, and examined how decision analytic techniques might contribute to problem structuring and to implementation of evidence-based practice. We argued that decision analysis could, to some extent, overcome complexity of decision making by a clear structuring of the problem and a formal analysis of the implications of different decisions. Decision-analytic techniques can guide the management of individual patients or can be used to address policy questions about the use of treatment for groups of patients. However, decision analysis is not without its criticisms, e.g. problems are narrowly defined, replacing judgement and dehumanizing care, neglect of process utility and lack of primary data to develop decision analytic models. The development of evidence-based guidelines is a key component of the UK Government's quality strategy led by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). However, the guidelines approach may lead to conflict when assessments of the effectiveness of interventions for individuals (whether or not supported by a formal decision analysis) conflict with the recommendations made by NICE for cost and clinical effectiveness for aggregate groups of patients. Decision analysis may or may not help with this but if guidelines are derived from a decision analysis, then the implications of patient preferences should be made clearer. However, decision analysis-derived guidelines will make general recommendations that may not be appropriate for all individuals. Nonetheless, decision analysis does make such implications explicit and propose that the guidelines should be supported by some mechanism for determining individual patient preferences. It will now need to consider whether some of NICE resources should be directed beyond evidence-based guidelines into decision analysis-derived guidelines and into decision analytical techniques to provide support for clinical and cost effective decision making within the patient-clinician encounter.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2000

Ultracision: the harmonic scalpel and its possible uses in maxillofacial surgery.

We report on the potential uses and benefits of a new development in incisive technology. The harmonic scalpel uses high-frequency mechanical energy to offer the surgeon controlled and precise incision and haemostasis. Vessels up to 2 mm in diameter may be sealed by coaptation with the blade before division. No special training or precautions are required before using this self-cleaning device. It produces considerably less smoke or smell than either diathermy or laser, which reduces the need for instrument exchanges and smoke evacuation. We think that it will be useful for tongue resections and possibly for neck dissections.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2000

Managing patient trust in managed care.

Patient trust has been identified as an important element in the patient-physician relationship. However, common features of managed care, such as risk-sharing, utilization review, and limitations on benefits, may erode the traditionally high trust that patients have in their physicians. High trust is not always justified; rather, an optimal level of trust arises from the level of interdependence between patients and physicians. This analysis of the interrelationship between patient-physician trust and some of the key facets of managed care has important implications for managed care. A return to high levels of trust may be impracticable, and new strategies for balancing trust-building efforts by caregivers with checking mechanisms accessible to patients are recommended.

Confidentiality↗
PubMed2000

Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the benefits and disadvantages of clinical and medical audit, and to assess the main facilitators and barriers to conducting the audit process. DESIGN: A comprehensive literature review was undertaken through a thorough review of Medline and CINAHL databases using the keywords of "audit", "audit of audits", and "evaluation of audits" and a handsearch of the indexes of relevant journals for key papers. RESULTS: Findings from 93 publications were reviewed. These ranged from single case studies of individual audit projects through retrospective reviews of departmental audit programmes to studies of interface projects between primary and secondary care. The studies reviewed incorporated the experiences of a wide variety of clinicians, from medical consultants to professionals allied to medicine and from those involved in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary ventures. Perceived benefits of audit included improved communication among colleagues and other professional groups, improved patient care, increased professional satisfaction, and better administration. Some disadvantages of audit were perceived as diminished clinical ownership, fear of litigation, hierarchical and territorial suspicions, and professional isolation. The main barriers to clinical audit can be classified under five main headings. These are lack of resources, lack of expertise or advice in project design and analysis, problems between groups and group members, lack of an overall plan for audit, and organisational impediments. Key facilitating factors to audit were also identified: they included modern medical records systems, effective training, dedicated staff, protected time, structured programmes, and a shared dialogue between purchasers and providers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical audit can be a valuable assistance to any programme which aims to improve the quality of health care and its delivery. Yet without a coherent strategy aimed at nurturing effective audits, valuable opportunities will be lost. Paying careful attention to the professional attitudes highlighted in this review may help audit to deliver on some of its promise.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2000

What stops effective clinical audit? Reports from the front line.

Semi-structured interview were conducted with 145 clinicians from a variety of clinical backgrounds in twelve Trusts across three Scottish health boards. Questions examined barriers to the audit process and obstacles that impeded the implementation of changes in response to the audit findings as well as the need for resources to facilitate the audit activity. The most difficult part of the audit process was reported as data collection (32%) but almost half of respondents would have changed the way the audit was done with hindsight. The biggest barrier to doing the audit was perceived as lack of time (33%). Colleagues' attitudes posed the biggest obstacles to making changes as a result of the audit (26%). Few perceived the need for more resources but preferred focused and proactive support from managers and audit support staff. Trusts need to work harder at creating cultures where clinical audit is supported and actively encouraged.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2000

Issues in measurement.

Measurement lies at the heart of all quantitative methods in clinical, epidemiological and health services research. If the measures employed lack the essential features of validity and reliability then the conclusions drawn from empirical findings may mislead. This short article explains and explores the desirable features of measurement instruments used in health-care research.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Bias in cohort studies.

Cohort studies allow an exploration of patient change over time. They can provide information on the incidence of disease, prognosis (including patient satisfaction) and likely health-care resource use. Nonetheless, bias can be present in cohort studies in the way patients are selected and followed-up, the way measures are taken, or the way data are analysed. This short paper explores ways in which such flaws can be uncovered in published studies, so that their findings can be interpreted appropriately.

Cohort Studies↗
PubMed2000

Bias in case-control studies.

Case-control studies are largely used to explore differences between groups of individuals. They can identify potential risk factors associated with disease, or they can investigate patient behaviour, such as why some people do not attend for services. As such, case-control studies are often used to generate or test hypotheses about causal factors. Nonetheless, bias is always a danger in case-control studies, arising especially from the way in which study samples are selected or from the collection of retrospective data. Confounding also remains a problem. This short paper explores ways in which such flaws can be uncovered in published studies.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Introducing critical appraisal.

All health-care professionals are being encouraged to use research evidence more in developing their clinical practice. To do this they need to inculcate the skills of 'critical appraisal'. Such skills involve assessing the appropriateness of research designs for answering clinical questions, critiquing the quality of the data gathering in individual studies, and assessing the implications of research findings.

Education, Continuing↗