Clinical decision-making is arguably the most important and underappreciated skill in pharmacy. It can be described as four discrete steps: information gathering, clinical reasoning and judgement and, the decision process. The information gathering and decision negotiation steps and to some extent clinical reasoning are addressed either implicitly or explicitly by practitioners and educators. Clinical judgement, however, remains a largely unexplored concept for clinical decision-making in healthcare therapeutics. It defines how practitioners arrive at a favourable treatment strategy and, due to the often complicated benefit:risk evaluations, is often linked with concepts relating to ambiguity. In this article, we use game theory to explore the judgement stage of clinical decision-making. Game theory allows us to provide a quantitative evaluation of clinical judgement and explore concepts such as ambiguity and its sources in healthcare. Clarifying the elements involved in the judgement stage of clinical decision-making will enable a better understanding of how pharmacists contribute patient care in healthcare teams.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
9
20%
Nursing and Health Professions
6
13%
Psychology
3
7%
Social Sciences
2
4%
Other
1
2%
Unknown
15
33%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#17,613,080
of 30,057,621 outputs
Outputs from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#1,067
of 1,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,990
of 346,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#29
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,057,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
