Implicit trust in clinical decision-making by multidisciplinary teams

In clinical practice, decision-making is not performed by individual knowers but by an assemblage of people and instruments in which no one member has full access to every piece of evidence. This is due to decision making teams consisting of members with different kinds of expertise, as well as to organisational and time constraints. This raises important questions for the epistemology of medicine, which is inherently social in this kind of setting, and implies epistemic dependence on others. Trust in these contexts is a highly complex social practice, involving different forms of relationships between trust and reasons for trust: based on reasons, and not based on reasons; based on reasons that are easily accessible to reflection and others that are not. In this paper, we focus on what it means to have reasons to trust colleagues in an established clinical team, collectively supporting or carrying out every day clinical decision-making. We show two important points about these reasons, firstly, they are not sought or given in advance of a situation of epistemic dependence, but are established within these situations; secondly they are implicit in the sense of being contained or nested within other actions that are not directly about trusting another person. The processes of establishing these reasons are directly about accomplishing a task, and indirectly about trusting someone else’s expertise or competence. These processes establish a space of reasons within which what it means to have reasons for trust, or not, gains a meaning and traction in these team-work settings. Based on a qualitative study of decision-making in image assisted diagnosis and treatment of a complex disease called pulmonary hypertension (PH), we show how an intersubjective framework, or ‘space of reasons’ is established through team members forging together a common way of identifying and dealing with evidence. In dealing with images as a central diagnostic tool, this also involves a common way of looking at the images, a common mode or style of perception. These frameworks are developed through many iterations of adjusting and calibrating interpretations in relation to those of others, establishing what counts as evidence, and ranking different kinds of evidence. Implicit trust is at work throughout this process. Trusting the expertise of others in clinical decision-making teams occurs while the members of the team are busy on other tasks, most importantly, building up a framework of common modes of seeing, and common ways of identifying and assessing evidence emerge. It is only in this way that trusting or mistrusting becomes meaningful in these contexts, and that a framework for epistemic dependence is established

Implicit trust in clinical decision-making by multidisciplinary teams

In clinical practice, decision-making is not performed by individual knowers but by an assemblage of people and instruments in which no one member has full access to every piece of evidence. This is due to decision making teams consisting of members with different kinds of expertise, as well as to organisational and time constraints. This raises important questions for the epistemology of medicine, which is inherently social in this kind of setting, and implies epistemic dependence on others. Trust in these contexts is a highly complex social practice, involving different forms of relationships between trust and reasons for trust: based on reasons, and not based on reasons; based on reasons that are easily accessible to reflection and others that are not. In this paper, we focus on what it means to have reasons to trust colleagues in an established clinical team, collectively supporting or carrying out every day clinical decision-making. We show two important points about these reasons, firstly, they are not sought or given in advance of a situation of epistemic dependence, but are established within these situations; secondly they are implicit in the sense of being contained or nested within other actions that are not directly about trusting another person. The processes of establishing these reasons are directly about accomplishing a task, and indirectly about trusting someone else’s expertise or competence. These processes establish a space of reasons within which what it means to have reasons for trust, or not, gains a meaning and traction in these team-work settings. Based on a qualitative study of decision-making in image assisted diagnosis and treatment of a complex disease called pulmonary hypertension (PH), we show how an intersubjective framework, or ‘space of reasons’ is established through team members forging together a common way of identifying and dealing with evidence. In dealing with images as a central diagnostic tool, this also involves a common way of looking at the images, a common mode or style of perception. These frameworks are developed through many iterations of adjusting and calibrating interpretations in relation to those of others, establishing what counts as evidence, and ranking different kinds of evidence. Implicit trust is at work throughout this process. Trusting the expertise of others in clinical decision-making teams occurs while the members of the team are busy on other tasks, most importantly, building up a framework of common modes of seeing, and common ways of identifying and assessing evidence emerge. It is only in this way that trusting or mistrusting becomes meaningful in these contexts, and that a framework for epistemic dependence is established

Lymnaea schirazensis, an Overlooked Snail Distorting Fascioliasis Data: Genotype, Phenotype, Ecology, Worldwide Spread, Susceptibility, Applicability

BACKGROUND: Lymnaeid snails transmit medical and veterinary important trematodiases, mainly fascioliasis. Vector specificity of fasciolid parasites defines disease distribution and characteristics. Different lymnaeid species appear linked to different transmission and epidemiological patterns. Pronounced susceptibility differences to absolute resistance have been described among lymnaeid populations. When assessing disease characteristics in different endemic areas, unexpected results were obtained in studies on lymnaeid susceptibility to Fasciola. We undertook studies to understand this disease transmission heterogeneity. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A ten-year study in Iran, Egypt, Spain, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru, demonstrated that such heterogeneity is not due to susceptibility differences, but to a hitherto overlooked cryptic species, Lymnaea schirazensis, confused with the main vector Galba truncatula and/or other Galba/Fossaria vectors. Nuclear rDNA and mtDNA sequences and phylogenetic reconstruction highlighted an old evolutionary divergence from other Galba/Fossaria species, and a low intraspecific variability suggesting a recent spread from one geographical source. Morphometry, anatomy and egg cluster analyses allowed for phenotypic differentiation. Selfing, egg laying, and habitat characteristics indicated a migration capacity by passive transport. Studies showed that it is not a vector species (n = 8572 field collected, 20 populations): snail finding and penetration by F. hepatica miracidium occur but never lead to cercarial production (n = 338 experimentally infected). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This species has been distorting fasciolid specificity/susceptibility and fascioliasis geographical distribution data. Hence, a large body of literature on G. truncatula should be revised. Its existence has henceforth to be considered in research. Genetic data on livestock, archeology and history along the 10,000-year post-domestication period explain its wide spread from the Neolithic Fertile Crescent. It is an efficient biomarker for the follow-up of livestock movements, a crucial aspect in fascioliasis emergence. It offers an outstanding laboratory model for genetic studies on susceptibility/resistance in F. hepatica/lymnaeid interaction, a field of applied research with disease control perspectives