AHMAS

Thema: ISPOG

• A. Knowledge
• B. Methodical work
• C. Meta compentencies
• D. Demo VSD
• E. E-teaching
• F. ISPOG2019
  • F. ISPOG2019
  • 1. What is a normal woman?
  • 1.00.0 Outline
  • 1.01 Introduction
  • 1.02 Culture
  • 1.03 Great skies
  • 1.04 Landscape = Cityscape
  • 1.05 Architecture
  • 1.06 ISPOG tradition
  • 1.07 Question: what is a normal woman
  • 1.08 Problems
  • 1.09 Question behind the question
  • 1.10 Cultural inversion
  • 1.11 Approach
  • 1.12 Avoidance
  • 1.13 Question behind the question
  • 1.14 Balancing has side effects
  • 1.15 Practical SE
  • 1.16 Conceptual
  • 1.17 Professional
  • 1.18 QbQ
  • 1.19 Prof. navigation tools
  • 1.20 Data
  • 1.21 Literature
  • 1.22 Search engines as knowledge brokers
  • 1.23 Consensus among peers
  • 1.24 No implicit consensus
  • 1.25 QbQ
  • 1.26 Growing mistrust in representation
  • 1.27 Trust is a gift
  • 1.28 Summary
  • 1.29 Connectivity also means...
  • 1.30 Outsourcing
  • 1.31 Dependency & Depression
  • 1.32 QbQ
  • 1.33 Good and bad news
  • 1.34 Bad news first
  • 1.35 Good news
  • 1.36 Energy in 'wicked problems'
  • 1.37 Still looking for solutions?
  • 1.38 Muddling through; a case report
  • 1.39 Muddling through; not a classical recipe
  • 1.40 back to muddling throughout: Reasoning
  • 1.40 The Why
  • 1.41 Idem
  • 1.42 Core problem: Non-lineair causality
  • 1.43 Cause and effect?
  • 1.44 Fly wheel effects; lots of 'risk factors'
  • 1.45 AbA (2)
  • 1.45 Interaction effects
  • 1.46 Non lineair causality
  • 1.47 Complexity >>> Multiplier principle
  • 1.48 Differentiation
  • 1.49 Crucial differentiation
  • 1.50 Create a shared vision
  • 1.51 Clin. reasoning
  • 1.51 Simple & Complicated: Clin.reasoning
  • 1.52 AbA (2)
  • 1.52 Complex: Experiential reasoning
  • 1.53 Emergentism
  • 1.53 Focus on the (educational) process
  • 1.54 Emergentism in detail
  • 1.54 Hell of a job
  • 1.55 Intellectual devil
  • 1.55 Self organisation
  • 1.56 Co-create!
  • 1.56 Cooperation: merging and splitting
  • 1.57 Specialisation
  • 1.57 TEAM
  • 1.58 Remember (Visual) complexity
  • 1.58 Shift between contexts
  • 1.59 Differentiate in (sorts of) criteria
  • 1.59 Remember Eureka!
  • 1.60 Secret: Let it be
  • 1.60 Social criteria
  • 1.61 Aesthetic criteria
  • 1.61 Embrace complexity
  • 1.62 Analogy POM's
  • 1.62 Other context in detail
  • 1.63 Proof of the pudding
  • 1.64 Becoming: Creative prof.
  • 1.64 Muddling through: summary
  • 1.65 Flexible
  • 1.65 There are answers, no solutions
  • 1.66 Diversity in philosophy
  • 1.66 Playground
  • 1.67 Other output & outcome
  • 1.68 Functional + Aesthetic design
  • 1.69 Conditional for Health Literacy
  • 1.70 Creative mindset: CO2 shift
  • 1.70 Method: Cynefin model
  • 1.71 Design Thinking
  • 1.71 Grow young again
  • 1.72 DT-Process
  • 1.72 Wisdom of insecurity
  • 1.73 DT-Products
  • 1.73 Forget solutions, forget Ockham
  • 1.74 DT-Tools: Digi-table
  • 1.74 Induction, deduction and...
  • 1.75 Envision the world as it could be
  • 1.75 Ethics
  • 1.76 Participating Management
  • 1.78 Avoid Group think
  • 1.79 Cognitive overload
  • 1.80 Cogn dissonance
  • 1.81 Leadership
  • 1.82 Inconvenient truth
  • 1.83 Embarrassment
  • 1.84 Toxic environment
  • 1.85 Toxic research
  • 1.86 Toxic management
  • 1.88 Abduction
  • 1.89 Scientific revolution?
  • 1.90 Homo universalis?
  • 1.91 Ownership
  • 1.92 Still a man
  • 1.93 Lessons learned after 64 years
  • 1.94 Normal woman?
  • 1.95 Me personally
  • 1.96 Special Thanks
  • 1.97 Invitation
  • 1.x First: Free ourselves
  • 1.x.31 Create confusion
  • 1.x.32 Visual generation
  • 1.x.33 Ending demoralisation
  • 2. Digitable
  • 2.1 Abstract
  • 2.2 Leaflet
  • 2.3 Presentation
  • 2.3.1 Why
  • 3. Team support

2.1 Abstract

Visualising shared decision making; a plenary session

ISPOG-congress, The Hague, 2019; Prof.dr Harry BM van de Wiel & Roelof Kammenga, MGM. University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands

Introduction

One of the main characteristics of the 21th century is growing importance and access to decision making on all levels of health care, e.g.

• Physicians and patients in consulting rooms;
• Health care professionals in multidisciplinary teams;
• Professionals and administrators in board rooms. 

It’s the quality of these decisions which to a large extend determines the quality of our health care and, on an individual level the quality of our lives.

Problem

The combination of technology push, the explosion of scientific knowledge, value based health care and personal medicine makes shared decision causing a growing overload of our human working memory, which was designed to evaluate six, plus or minus one bits of information.

Possibilities

If available Big Data can contribute to optimize the process of shared decision making.  Another option is to aim for super intelligent professionals, like world champion chess players, who are trained to ‘exceed’ the limitations of normal working memory capacity. However, this kind of resources are not always present so therefore we elaborated on the combination of two more old fashioned mechanisms:  

• visualising arguments;
• discussing pro’s and con’s by manipulating and categorising arguments as physical objects. 

Proposal

The Visual Decision Support methodology consists of the combination of:

• a large touch screen table of 1.5 square meter (sort of mega Ipad);
• a group of 4-7decision makers;
• a Table host, who prepares (inventarisation of relevant arguments) and guides  the process of SDM. 

Demonstration

Based on some pilot studies and our experiences of the last two years, we will show how VDS can be used on the above mentioned domains in health care. After a plenary introduction participants are invited to experience working with this tool themselves. The entire process, what happens on and around the table will be showed on a large screen to the audience.