The power struggle: exploring the reality of clinical reasoning.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/13634593211054008
Thiani Pillay, Mershen Pillay
{"title":"The power struggle: exploring the reality of clinical reasoning.","authors":"Thiani Pillay,&nbsp;Mershen Pillay","doi":"10.1177/13634593211054008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Historically, clinical reasoning has largely been considered from an empirical, biomedical standpoint. This epistemology, rooted in imperial rule, is influential in how healthcare practitioners practice. An empirical approach to healthcare often oversimplifies the complex nature of clinical reasoning by obscuring the influence of imperial ideologies on decision-making. This can perpetuate inequitable approaches to healthcare delivery which deepen social, political and economic divides globally. This paper aims to explore and challenge this standpoint by exploring how power, imperialism and performativity influences healthcare provision and decision-making amongst healthcare practitioners in dysphagia rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Qualitative exploratory interviews were undertaken with seven South African trained SLPs with experience working in dysphagia. To allow for participation and collaboration from participants, three data collection tools were employed within the interviews: oral histories, cognitive mapping and arts-based tasks. An initial modified thematic analysis followed by a further ideological analysis were undertaken to analyse the data collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results suggest that the participants felt influenced by several manifestations of power within healthcare. We argue that this demonstrates that imperial practices can influence knowledge, interaction and context and therefore affect how healthcare practitioners make decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By acknowledging the impact of imperialism and power dynamics on healthcare provision and clinical reasoning we can potentially begin to transform the epistemology from which we approach healthcare provision in favour of one which is better suited to the current realities of healthcare to allow for equitable service provision.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":"27 4","pages":"559-587"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593211054008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: Historically, clinical reasoning has largely been considered from an empirical, biomedical standpoint. This epistemology, rooted in imperial rule, is influential in how healthcare practitioners practice. An empirical approach to healthcare often oversimplifies the complex nature of clinical reasoning by obscuring the influence of imperial ideologies on decision-making. This can perpetuate inequitable approaches to healthcare delivery which deepen social, political and economic divides globally. This paper aims to explore and challenge this standpoint by exploring how power, imperialism and performativity influences healthcare provision and decision-making amongst healthcare practitioners in dysphagia rehabilitation.

Methods: Qualitative exploratory interviews were undertaken with seven South African trained SLPs with experience working in dysphagia. To allow for participation and collaboration from participants, three data collection tools were employed within the interviews: oral histories, cognitive mapping and arts-based tasks. An initial modified thematic analysis followed by a further ideological analysis were undertaken to analyse the data collected.

Results: The results suggest that the participants felt influenced by several manifestations of power within healthcare. We argue that this demonstrates that imperial practices can influence knowledge, interaction and context and therefore affect how healthcare practitioners make decisions.

Conclusion: By acknowledging the impact of imperialism and power dynamics on healthcare provision and clinical reasoning we can potentially begin to transform the epistemology from which we approach healthcare provision in favour of one which is better suited to the current realities of healthcare to allow for equitable service provision.

权力斗争:探索临床推理的现实。
目的:历史上,临床推理在很大程度上是从经验和生物医学的角度来考虑的。这种认识论,植根于帝国统治,是如何影响医疗从业者的做法。通过模糊帝国意识形态对决策的影响,医疗保健的经验方法往往过度简化了临床推理的复杂性质。这可能使提供医疗保健的不公平做法永久化,从而加深全球的社会、政治和经济分歧。本文旨在通过探索权力、帝国主义和表演如何影响吞咽困难康复中的医疗保健从业者的医疗保健提供和决策,来探索和挑战这一观点。方法:对7名在南非接受过培训的有吞咽困难工作经验的slp进行定性探索性访谈。为了允许参与者参与和协作,在访谈中使用了三种数据收集工具:口述历史、认知映射和基于艺术的任务。对收集到的数据进行了初步修改的专题分析,然后进行了进一步的意识形态分析。结果:研究结果表明,在医疗保健中,参与者感受到权力的几种表现形式的影响。我们认为,这表明帝国实践可以影响知识,互动和背景,因此影响医疗保健从业者如何做出决定。结论:通过承认帝国主义和权力动态对医疗保健提供和临床推理的影响,我们可以潜在地开始转变我们处理医疗保健提供的认识论,以支持更适合当前医疗保健现实的认识论,以允许公平的服务提供。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信