References

Banning M. A Review of clinical decision making: models and current research. J Crit Nurs. 2008; 17:(2)187-195

Baron J. Handbook of judgment and decision making.London: Blackwell; 2004

Baron J. The point of normative models in judgement and decision making. Front Psychol. 2012; 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00577

Beach L, Connolly T. The psychology of decision making: people in organisations.London: Sage Publications Series; 2005

Benner P. From novice to expert excellence and power in clinical nursing practice.Boston (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1984

Benner P, Tanner C. How expert nurses use intuition. Am J Nurs. 1987; 87:(1)23-31

Benner P, Tanner C, Chelsa C. Expertise in nursing practice: caring, clinical, judgement and ethics.New York: Springer; 1996

Bloom B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.Boston (MA): Allyn and Bacon; 1956

Buckingham C, Adams A. Classifying Clinical Decision Making: A unifying Approach. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 32:(4)981-989

Carnavelli D, Mitchell P, Woods N. Diagnostic reasoning in nursing.Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott; 1984

Cohen M, March J, Olsen J. A Garbage Can model of organisational choice. Admin Sci Quarterl. 1972; 17:(1)1-25

Cockram E, Hicks S. Advanced Practice in Healthcare, 1st edn. Oxon: Routledge; 2012

Cork A. Foundations for paramedic practice: a theoretical practice, 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2012

Daft R. Organisation theory and design.Mason (OH): South-Western Cengage Learning; 2009

Dowie J. Clinical decision analysis: background and introduction analysing how we reach decisions.London: Royal College of Physicians; 1993

Field P. The impact of nursing theory on the clinical decision making process. J Adv Nurs. 1987; 12:(5)563-571

Gallagher A, Zasada M, Jago R Fitness to practice concerns and preventative strategies. J Para Pract. 2018; 10:(4)163-169

Gigerenzer G, Todd P. Simple heurisitcs that make us smart.New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1999

Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.London: HCPC; 2008

Threshold level of qualification for entry to the register for paramedics.London: HCPC; 2018

Jensen J, Croskerry P, Travers A. Paramedic clinical decision making during high acuity emergency calls: design and methodology of a Delphi study. BMC Emerg Med. 2009; 9:(17)1-40

Larrick RP. Debiasing. In: Koehler DJ, Harvey N London: Blackwell; 2004

Headaches in over 12s: diagnosis and management.London: NICE; 2015

NHS. Brain aneurysm. 2018. https//www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-aneurysm/ (accessed 29 April 2019)

NHS Employers. Newly qualified paramedics. 2017. https//tinyurl.com/y6sdvubq (accessed 29 April 2019)

Nixon V. Professional practice in paramedic, emergency and urgent care.Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2013

Romano V. The time is right to make decisions with confidence. J Para Pract. 2018; 10:(9)401-402

Standing M. Clinical Judgment and decision making in nursing and interprofessional healthcare.Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2010

Sullivan E, Decker P. Effective leadership and management in nursing.London: Prentice-Hall; 2005

Thompson C, Dowding D. Clinical decision making and judgement in nursing.London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002

Clinical decision-making and its place in paramedic practice

02 May 2019
Volume 11 · Issue 5

Abstract

In the pre-hospital environment, paramedics are required to make clinical decisions, often rapidly to ensure correct treatment and care is provided. Decisions made by paramedics majorly impacts on the life, clinical outcome, safety, health and wellbeing of their patients. With the introduction of the Newly Qualified Paramedic Framework, it potentially has never been more pertinent to examine the decision-making process-an integral part of paramedicine.

The implementation of the NQP framework has prompted an exploration into clinical decision making and its place in an ever-evolving profession. Through examination of theories and frameworks, this article aims to identify the underpinning evidence that enables a paramedic to reach a competent decision and the barriers experienced in the process.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this module the paramedic will be able to:

  • Understand Bloom's Taxonomy and how this impacts on the clinical decision-making processes affecting paramedics
  • Describe frameworks frequently used by paramedics to reach clinical decisions
  • Reflect upon your own clinical decision-making processes giving particular attention to positive outcomes
  • Compare clinical decisions with colleagues who have greater/lesser experience and analyse within reflective practice
  • Paramedics must recognise that decision making is not the same as problem solving; however, one does complement the other. Decision making is defined by Dowie (1993) as the assessment of the alternative, arguing that such decisions are based on assessments of the future, with ethical and legal considerations. Problem solving is a systematic process that focuses on analysing a difficult process after which a decision will be reached (Cork, 2012).

    The subject of how paramedics make decisions is arising more frequently in the literature. However, is still largely unexplored when compared with other health professions. Decision making in a clinical context has however been studied by many authors heavily over the last 50 years, all of whom offer different terminology to describe it. What was described as clinical decision making by Field (1987) was described as clinical reasoning by Carnevelli et al (1984) and clinical judgments by Thompson and Dowding (2002).

    Theories and models

    Decision making is a complex process (Standing, 2010) and decisions made by paramedics are based on a variety of information sources such as experience, knowledge, experience of others, research and available evidence (Thompson and Dowding, 2002). There are many theories and models which underpin how clinicians go through a decision-making process based on the information that is available to them. The problem as described by Jensen et al (2009) is that paramedics are often making decisions with very limited information, either from partial or incomplete patient history, and with limited support or resources.

    There are three theories of decision making, with each decision falling into either ‘normative’, ‘descriptive’ or ‘prescriptive’; although Nixon (2013) claims that distinction of the theories while in practice is unclear.

    Normative theories are standards of evaluation and where there appears to be no obvious conclusion (Baron, 2012), decisions are drawn from philosophical and mathematical argument (Baron, 2004).

    Descriptive theory tries to explain how and why people make decisions (Baron, 2012) based in real life, what people actually do, or have done when making decisions (Nixon, 2013).

    Prescriptive decision making is the theoretical aspect of normative and the observational aspect of descriptive (Nixon, 2013). Larrick (2004) describes prescriptive judgmental theories as being an imperative tool for redesign or improvement.

    There are two key opposing intangible frameworks into which all models of judgement fit, each one underpinning the clinical decision-making process:

  • Intuitive
  • Analytical.
  • Intuitive

    Intuition as a decisive model is described by Benner and Tanner (1987) as how decisions are reached without a need to understand rationale, suggesting that experts in practice can use hunches to formulate decisions. Benner (1984) documented, in an infamous work, five stages to skill acquisition and, on the basis of this, the intuitive decisions reached by experts differed greatly to those reached by novices.

    An example put into context by Nixon (2013) describes an incident of a pale and clammy patient suffering severe and sudden onset back pain. Using Benner's (1984) framework (Table 1), an expert paramedic would use intuition and immediately form a judgement of aortic dissection, whereas a competent or novice paramedic would seek to analyse evidence/clinical observations and observe the patient before reaching a clinical decision. Benner's (1984) belief is that intuition is an essential part of clinical decision making and is linked clearly to expertise. Banning (2008) however argues that intuition is based on guess work and personal opinion—thus taking the normative approach towards the intuitive framework.


    Novice
  • Beginner with no experience
  • Taught general rules to help perform tasks
  • E.g. ‘Tell me what I need to do and I'll do it’
  • Advanced beginner
  • Demonstrates acceptable performance
  • Has gained prior experience in actual situations to recognise recurring meaningful components
  • Principles, based on experiences, begin to be formulated to guide actions
  • Competent
  • Typically 2–3 years experience on the job in the same area or in similar day-to-day situations
  • Gains perspective from planning own actions based on conscious, abstract, and analytical thinking and helps to achieve greater efficiency and organisation
  • Proficient
  • Perceives and understands situations in whole parts
  • Learns from experience and what to expect in certain situations
  • More holistic understanding
  • Expert
  • No longer relies on principles, rules and guidelines
  • Greater background of experience
  • Intuitive grasp of clinical situations
  • Performance is highly proficient
  • Source: Benner, 1984

    In connection with the intuitive approach, pattern recognition is regularly used to describe the decision-making process (Benner et al, 1996). The practitioner uses previously attained knowledge, experience and terminology to recognise a pattern of events in order to form a judgement (Buckingham and Adams, 2000). This is most commonly evidenced with the current 999 emergency ambulance triage system and arguably the most frequently used decision-making tool among paramedics. An example of this is the term ‘thunderclap headache’ which immediately suggests cerebral haemorrhage (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2015). With this term and condition commonly associated with one another, NHS (2018) advises that an emergency ambulance will be dispatched.

    Gigerenzer and Todd (1999) documented that by using the intuitive or pattern-recognition tool to make decisions, clinicians are at risk of forming a bias; they allude to the possibility that poor decisions are created within the intuitive process.

    Analytical

    Cohen et al (1972) created The Garbage Can model which indicates that decisions are made and used and then reused again—a model created for organisational decisions rather than those made at an individual level.

    The analytical frameworks are based on rationalistic perspective and assume that the person making the decision has a logical, cognitive thought process and is able to study and analyse an actual decision-making framework at the time it is required (Daft, 2009). Beach and Connolly (2005) recognise that this is not always achievable and identify limitations of rationality when there is limited information available.

    Most clinical situations encountered in prehospital practice will require a combination of analytical and intuitive frameworks to form clinical decisions (Nixon, 2013); however, Cork (2012) recognises that when attending to complex incidents, paramedics will need to take a broader approach to clinical justification and a combination of frameworks will not be appropriate. Nixon (2013) also highlights that when dealing with emergencies, paramedics cannot often afford the time to study and follow analytical models, and therefore indicates that the intuitive process is most commonly best practice.

    Professional issues

    Barriers are important to acknowledge when analysing decision making as the effects of the decision can be substantial. One of the main barriers at operational level explained by Sullivan and Decker (2005) involves the shortcuts professionals are willing to take. By taking shortcuts, the amount of attainable information is limited, which also limits the quality and alternatives which are generated and considered.

    While the paramedic profession along with all other healthcare providers are governed by clinical guidelines, the autonomy that paramedics are given leaves them more susceptible to litigation, complaints and unnecessary conveyance to hospital. Complaints against health professionals are rising with paramedics forming the second most common profession to enter fitness-to-practise cases by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) (Gallagher, 2018).

    Romano (2018) agrees that it is therefore understandable why paramedics fear discharging patients and making decisions like this on scene despite not having a clinical need to convey to hospital. Rarely are decisions analysed in any depth when a positive outcome has been achieved; the analysis therefore only forming part of the reflection process following poor decision making or judgments. By engaging in this way of practice, Cork (2012) argues that the practitioner is denying themselves the opportunity to enhance learning based on positive decisions. This implies that a greater focus should be placed upon the recognition of good decisions, on a platform deemed suitable by the clinician.

    Areas of prehospital care which affect the decision-making process

  • Legal and ethical issues
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Identifying and using alternative care pathways for patients not suitable for A&E
  • Managing patients with an EHCP (emergency healthcare plan)
  • Invasive clinical procedures
  • Decision making and education

    According to Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy, diagnosis is an analytical skill, which requires significant critical thinking to employ correctly. Cognitive functions involved in decision making are shown in Bloom's (1956) theoretical model. Using Bloom's Taxonomy to make a competent clinical decision, a clinician must be able to:

  • Use knowledge to recognise symptoms
  • Have comprehension to translate the symptoms into an organ/system
  • Apply and relate the symptoms to pathological processes and changes
  • Analyse and distinguish one pathological process from another
  • Synthesise and combine symptoms and pathological processes to recognise a pattern of specific conditions
  • Evaluate all the gathered information to make a clinical decision.
  • Traditionally, most paramedics in England are educated to Diploma level (HCPC, 2018) and work as autonomous practitioners who are accountable for their own decisions and actions (HCPC, 2008). Cockram and Hicks (2012) document that critical thinking is usually not required or assessed at diploma level and question how paramedics and nurses can graduate without a level of thinking that requires knowledge and comprehension to critically analyse and evaluate decisions—Comments which are supported by Bloom's (1956) theoretical model. However, with the paramedic profession moving towards a degree-based qualification, it is argued within literature that students should be taught decision-making models and how to think critically to form a competent clinical decision (Cockram and Hicks, 2012).

    Regardless of educational route into the profession, all newly qualified paramedics (NQPs) within the UK are expected to undertake up to 24 months of consolidation and produce a portfolio which ‘will evidence autonomous decision-making based on sound clinical judgment’ (NHS Employers, 2017), suggesting that the NQP framework itself indirectly supports Benner's (1984) theory of intuitive decisions.

    A dangerous imbalance can develop between confidence and competence without objective decision making. Despite the suggestion that the intuitive framework is best suited to the paramedic profession and considering the criticism this process receives, it is reasonable therefore to highlight that more work needs to be done to ensure that paramedics have a framework that is fit for practice and will not easily allow for such heavy criticism. Arguably, such a framework could prove an essential tool to support how an NQP will evidence autonomous decision making.