Cognitive processes in pharmacists’ clinical decision-making

Abstract

Background Pharmacists’ clinical decision-making is a core process in pharmaceutical care. However, the practical aspects and effective teaching methods of this process remain largely unexplored. Objective To examine the cognitive processes involved in pharmacists’ perceptions of how they make clinical decisions in pharmacy practice. Methods Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with pharmacists working in community, outpatient, and hospital care in the Netherlands between August and December 2021. Participants were explicitly asked for examples when asked how they make clinical decisions in practice and how they teach this to others. After transcribing audio-recorded interviews, an inductive thematic analysis was conducted to identify cognitive processes. A theoretical model of clinical decision-making was then used and adapted to structure the identified processes. Results In total, 21 cognitive processes were identified from interviews with 16 pharmacists working in community (n = 5), outpatient (n = 2), and hospital care (n = 9). These cognitive processes were organized into 8 steps of the adapted theoretical model, i.e. problem and demand for care consideration, information collection, clinical reasoning, clinical judgment, shared decision-making, implementation, outcomes evaluation, and reflection. Pharmacists struggled to articulate their clinical decision-making and went back-and-forth in their explanations of this process. All pharmacists emphasized the importance of identifying the problem and described how they collect information through reviewing, gathering, recalling, and investigating. Clinical reasoning entailed various cognitive processes, of which comprehending the problem in the patient's context was deemed challenging at times. Pharmacists seemed least active in evaluating patient outcomes and reflecting on these outcomes. Conclusions Pharmacists use multiple cognitive processes when making clinical decisions in pharmacy practice, and their back-and-forth explanations emphasize its dynamic nature. This study adds to a greater understanding of how pharmacists make clinical decisions and to the development of a theoretical model that describes this process, which can be used in pharmacy practice and education.