v Book: 'Complexity in Health Care - A Paradigm Shift for Clinical Practice'
Chapter 11 held promise in the title 'Formalising the Clinical Field'.
If anyone is interested, formalisation is what I would like to focus upon - using Hodges' model - over the next several years (taking nothing for granted). If truth be told, I'd be stressed as if (true) formalisation was discovered here, I may find this is beyond me, but this is the course I have chosen.
There was nothing new, the 'clinical illustrations' continued. The reading is worthwhile, in trying to define complexity, or what constitutes a 'complex case', hence 'Each new entry expands the complexity and gravity of the case, moving it beyond "plain vanilla" of a single medical or socially based condition'. I was reminded here of the user personas used in developing online communities. And in health the way personalised detail gets lost as personal details - emotional content gets lost (necessarily) as data is aggregated. The chapter revists the definition of clinical complexity.
'So, how does this information fit with our tentative understanding of clinical complexity as "the potential for progress toward health recovery in the context of a particular set of diagnoses and available treatments" (Kathol et al. 2018)? The phrase "particular set of diagnoses" could be replaced by "clinical challenges?" After all, where do you fit cultural considerations or family disjunctions here? Neither are diagnoses per se. Both have typically been relegated to the periphery of diagnostic considerations. Instead, they are elements in a loose matrix of clinical influencers.' p.76. [My emphasis].Well, Hodges' model provides an ideal place for cultural considerations and family disjunctions. But replacing 'particular set of diagnoses' with 'clinical challenges' will be met with a challenge itself. This serves my purpose in advocating for Hodges' model, if challenges across the model's four care/knowledge domains can be seen as 'clinical'.
 |
| Identity morphism |
Part VI on Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity is an important lesson to look; then look again - beyond the (basic!) subjective-objective dichotomy. You want patients - clients to recover quickly. The clinical illustrations are helpfully carried forward, as per the longevity their being 'complex' portends. The fact that in a clinical conference, social aspects are barely mentioned is one rationale for use of Hodges' model in practice. What has not been discussed? For 'Seth' a case formulation is raised, (I sketched a 'simple' triangle) and the limited conceptual scope acknowledged above (p.80). Reading, I did wonder what a new edition might look like given developments in the USA? Would it make a difference? There a question about to categorise one client. And I scribbled 'identity' in the summary for the subjectivity between client and clinician.
I've always liked archaic terms^ and here cussedness springs to mind as the authors seem compelled to return to the issue of a definition for complexity. You could say - they can't put it to bed! 'Lifestyle' is not indexed. But it is clear that the adopted lifestyle of many clients also compounds, contributes to the clinically complex presentation. Case, condition, set of sign/symptoms, state of affairs, situation - all may be simple or complex. On page 87 regards Mark: 'The management challenge of this situation is evident. The situation itself is not medically complex. However, managing it is.'
When I read the aforementioned formalisation (chapter 11), I thought logic might follow, a specific illustration? Abduction is a teaser introducing chapter 14. It is chapter 15 that inference including abduction is usefully discussed:
'Abduction goes further than obtaining general and specific logical conclusions. Abduction seeks explanations beyond logic. The clinician listens to the utterances of a patient and integrates word meanings and word referents with other gathered data. The clinician abductively decodes information and concocts potential explanations for the words of the patient that fit with aggregated clinical findings. This rational processing results in what the clinician considers the best explanation for the information at hand. However, other explanations remain as viable until and unless eliminated by subsequent data. The clinician using abductive reasoning always maintains an openness to changing explanations and an intention to expunge unsatisfactory conclusions as accumulating data dictate [1].' p.96.
The author's empirical-collaborative (E-C) approach spans the book. They might find that Hodges' model as a conceptual framework can seamlessly fit with E-C. A reference on Bayesian Statistics. Lee PM (2013), plus further reading is listed.
There is a spelling mistake p.73; 'contacted a disease'?
One more post to follow ... may add here also.
Thanks again to Daniela and colleagues at SpringerNature for the review copy.
Steven A. Frankel, Steven D. Thurber, James A. Bourgeois (2023) Complexity in Health Care: A Paradigm Shift for Clinical Practice. Cham. Switzerland: Springer. ISBN: 978303114948.
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965
