|
|
|||||||||||
Tom Sensky is a reader in psychological medicine at Imperial College School of Medicine (Lakeside Mental Health Unit, West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 6AF, UK. Tel: 020 8321 5179; e-mail: t.sensky{at}ic.ac.uk) and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist for West London Mental Health NHS Trust, Lakeside Mental Health Centre. His clinical and research interests include cognitive aspects of physical and mental illness, and he teaches regularly on critical appraisal and evidence-based practice.
Knowledge management sounds superficially like yet another of those topical expressions describing something that has been developed outside medicine and is possibly ill-suited for application within the field, but offering an excuse for yet more change. However, one of the distinguishing features of every profession is that it applies a body of specialist knowledge and skills to a defined purpose. Knowledge in medicine is growing exponentially. In a recent survey of just 22 general practices, the practice guidelines identified weighed 28 kg (Hibble et al, 1998)! In psychiatry, about 5500 papers which potentially have clinical relevance are published annually. Keeping pace with knowledge as it grows is a major challenge for all clinicians. This is reflected in the National Health Service (NHS) information strategy, which identifies three specific needs of clinicians (NHS Executive, 1998). These are:
All of these include an important element of knowledge management.
| Data, information and knowledge |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Data have no meaning or significance in themselves. Examples include individual mental symptoms shown by a particular patient or items in a computer spreadsheet. Information is data which have meaning because of a relational connection. In other words, information is data which have been processed to be useful. Information aims to provide answers to the questions Who?, What?, Where? and When? It is worth noting that although information is intended to be useful, it is not necessarily so. Merely aggregating data and identifying relationships between variables does not guarantee utility. Knowledge is information to which a process has been applied, which may eventually become expertise (Liebowitz, 2000). It is the collation of information for a particular purpose, intended to be useful (Bellinger et al, 1999). Knowledge aims to answer the question How? Developing new knowledge from that which already exists to answer the question Why? may be defined as understanding. However, while knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for understanding, the availability of appropriate knowledge does not guarantee understanding.
The relationships between data, information and knowledge are summarised in Fig. 1
. However, this is not necessarily unidirectional, but is often circular or iterative. For example, individual items in a clinical data-set constitute data. When aggregated, they can yield information, which in turn can be appraised and interpreted to give knowledge. However, designing a clinical data-set includes making a decision about which items are needed and how they should be coded. These decisions are informed by existing knowledge, but they may need revision in the light of new knowledge developed from the use of the data-set. In the same way, reviewing the formulation of an individual patients presenting problems (knowledge) may lead to a reappraisal of individual symptoms (data).
|
| Knowledge management |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
| The nature of knowledge |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A distinction is commonly made between tacit and explicit knowledge. Consider the scenario in which a consultant is phoned in the early hours of the morning by the on-call senior house officer (SHO) asking for guidance about risk assessment for someone presenting following an overdose. If the consultant merely elicits the key features of the case that are relevant to risk and then tells the trainee what to do, this would be the application of tacit knowledge. The knowledge rests with the individual in a form which cannot be transferred for use by others. Knowledge gained through personal experience is tacit knowledge. On the other hand, if the consultant reviews the application of the principles of risk assessment in this particular case with the trainee and helps her to form her own judgement, this would be the transfer of explicit knowledge. If staff in the trust concerned had developed guidance notes on risk management of deliberate self-harm, these would also be an example of tacit knowledge, explicitly stated and readily accessible to anyone who requires it. In the literature about knowledge management, it is commonly assumed that in order to use or otherwise manage knowledge, it must be converted, where necessary, from tacit to explicit. This conversion is a major challenge to organisations, especially where expert knowledge is carried by individuals. Although these principles have been identified as pertinent to commercial organisations, they probably also apply to a large extent to medicine in general. They are also applicable in psychiatry, although there may be some exceptions such as some processes in psychotherapy supervision.
It can sometimes help to divide knowledge into that which is superficial and that which is deep. Following a simple management plan dictated by a protocol requires only superficial knowledge. Understanding the principles underlying the protocol requires deeper knowledge.
A distinction between catalogue knowledge, process knowledge and cultural knowledge may also be helpful. Catalogue knowledge is the simplest form and requires the least specialist input into its development. It is possibly the easiest form to measure. An example would be knowledge about a general psychiatry services access to specialist services, and their relative merits. (Note that a list of addresses and telephone numbers on its own constitutes information rather than knowledge.) Process knowledge is exemplified by clinical practice guidelines, protocols and care pathways. Cultural knowledge relates to the application of the two other types in a specific setting.
These classifications of knowledge are not mutually exclusive. For example, the range of interventions used within the Care Programme Approach (CPA) by a particular community mental health team, which have to some extent been defined by the teams expertise and resources, involves cultural as well as process knowledge. The former will, in most instances, be tacit, while the latter may be explicit to some degree, depending on the extent to which the team follows care pathways or guidelines. If the team is, for example, following prescribing guidelines, the psychiatrist(s) in the team would be expected to have deep knowledge about their contents, while other team members would only need more superficial knowledge.
It becomes apparent that breaking knowledge down into its components may help to identify training as well as information needs. Conversely, by investigating knowledge itself, can we expect to gain a better understanding of its application and management in clinical practice? Knowledge and its properties have been the focus of much attention in philosophy. Other disciplines, notably anthropology, also provide valuable insights into the common features of knowledge applied in different settings (DAndrade, 1995).
| Knowledge management and the individual clinician |
|---|
|
|
|---|
More generally, the need for personal knowledge management skills underlies the widespread acknowledgement that now, more than ever before, it is impossible for a clinician to acquire sufficient knowledge during training to equip him or her for the duration of a professional career. This is reflected not only in the importance attached to continuing professional development, but also in the change in emphasis during undergraduate medical training from the acquisition of facts to the development of skills needed for lifelong learning.
Perhaps the most obvious application of individual knowledge management is evidence-based practice. Evidence-based medicine has been defined as a process of lifelong self-directed learning in which caring for our patients creates the need for clinically important information (Sackett et al, 1997). The process of evidence-based practice involves several steps (Box 1
) which closely mirror those identified as contributing to knowledge management. This is hardly surprising, since evidence-based practice is, in effect, a systematic method of identifying and managing specific gaps in knowledge.
| Box 1 Components of evidence-based practice (after Sackettet al, 1997) Convert information needs into answerable questions Efficiently find the best evidence available to answer the questions Critically appraise the evidence for its validity and its applicability to clinical practice Apply the results, where appropriate, to the original question Evaluate the outcome
|
The application of evidence-based practice to individual patients offers two important lessons about knowledge management. First, a great deal can be learned from individual cases. Second, whether or not knowledge is gained in this way depends heavily on the skills and processes applied. If inadequate attention is paid to these, commonly little or no knowledge is gained. For example, before conducting a literature search, the question must be formulated in a way which will optimise the chances of finding relevant material (the so-called four-part question) (Richardson et al, 1995). This is a specific skill which can be acquired by training and practice. Using predefined search terms or filters can also considerably increase the efficiency and productivity of the search. In essence, these filters are technologies supporting the search for evidence. Without these skills and technologies, literature searching often proves unproductive and, in some instances, completely unsuccessful. Other methodologies are also available to enhance learning from single cases (Box 2
).
|
| Why case-based knowledge management is under-utilised |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Knowledge acquired from individual cases is subject to numerous pitfalls, which can discourage clinicians from pursuing this further. Perhaps the most striking example in psychiatry is the knowledge gained from independent inquiries into homicides, suicides and other serious incidents. Clinicians, like lay people, are susceptible to substantial bias in the retrospective interpretation of events. When examining the origins of a serious incident, there is a common tendency to assume that the incident was inevitable, rather than to ask the clinically pertinent question: how likely was it that this incident would occur, based on prior available information plus existing knowledge? This error, which can sometimes have very wide-ranging repercussions, is due to a specific inadequacy in knowledge management skills. Much more common is the tendency shown by some experienced clinicians to apply anecdotal evidence from past cases to current clinical problems. The problem here, as often also applies in independent inquiries, is that the most memorable cases are often the most atypical, and thus the least likely to yield knowledge that can be generalised.
Perhaps the most challenging problem facing clinicians trying to learn from individual cases is to disengage the process of learning from mistakes, from the admission of failure. This applies to other professions as much as to doctors (Argyris, 1998). Solving this problem requires organisational as well as individual changes and it is discussed below.
| Knowledge management in organisations |
|---|
|
|
|---|
What often works against the productive collection and application of clinical information in many NHS trusts is that their information systems are poorly integrated with clinical practice. Either the information system has been designed to meet very limited objectives (such as gathering purely administrative data) or it functions in parallel with routine clinical practice rather than being properly integrated with it. However, it follows that many clinicians are not as familiar as they should be with the sources of information available to them as starting points for knowledge. An essential prerequisite of knowledge management within an organisation is to audit the way in which information is processed (Box 3
). Beyond this, a set of factors can be defined which describe how effectively an organisation manages its knowledge. Numerous descriptions of these factors are available on the internet and in hard copy form. Box 4
offers one example. These factors can be grouped into values, behaviours and processes supported by appropriate technologies.
| Box 3 Auditing information management in an organisation (Liebowitz, 2000) Identify the information needs of the organisation and of individuals working in it Identify information created within the organisation and attempt to assess its value Identify expertise and knowledge assets Identify information gaps Review current use of internal and external information sources Map information flows and identify bottlenecks Develop a knowledge map of the organisation, indicating appropriate connections
|
| Box 4 Tests of organisational knowledge management (Webb, 1998) Can we transfer knowledge easily to new staff? Is ours an information/knowledge-sharing culture? Do we know what and where our knowledge assets are? Is knowledge organised and easy to find? Do we capture and share best practice? Do we learn from mistakes? Do we reward knowledge-sharing? Are we exploiting knowledge effectively and strategically? Does our knowledge walk out of the door as staff leave?
|
| Learning organisations |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Different levels of learning can be differentiated. At the basic level, an audit might reveal unsatisfactory performance against predefined standards, and practice is consequently changed in an attempt to improve performance. Because it resembles a simple feedback loop, this is sometimes called single-loop learning (Argyris, 1998). Using new knowledge to develop a totally new practice reflects a more sophisticated form of learning. Organisations will also find it helpful to examine when and how they can achieve optimal learning conditions, and what barriers exist within the organisation that impede learning. This is termed meta-learning (Davies & Nutley, 2000).
In essence, a learning organisation is one that values knowledge and recognises it as central to organisational development. Individuals knowledge is nurtured, but it is understood that the organisation should be able to develop this into corporate knowledge.
| Barriers to applying knowledge management |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Auditing knowledge management and organisational learning |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A simple audit for an NHS trust (or other organisation) wishing to examine the extent to which it has developed a learning environment is to ask staff members to identify one change in practice in the preceding 12 months that resulted from new knowledge, and to summarise that knowledge. If the audit also asked staff to identify the sources of the knowledge which proved useful, the data collected would yield information about the trusts knowledge management resources, going some way towards answering the points in Box 3
.
| Clinical governance: the context of knowledge management |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| A personal reflection |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
| Multiple choice questions |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
| Footnotes |
|---|
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Bellinger, G., Castro, D. & Mills, A. (1999) Data, information, knowledge and wisdom. http://www.outsights.com/systems/dikw/dikw.htm.
DAndrade, R. (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davenport, T. H. (1998) Ten principles of knowledge management. http://www.bus.utexas.edu/kman/kmprin.htm.
Davies, H. T. O. & Nutley, S. M. (2000) Developing learning organisations in the new NHS. BMJ, 320, 9981001.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 327358.
Garvin, D. A. (1998) Building a learning organisation. In Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp. 4780. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & ABC Research Group (1999) Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gray, J. A. M. (1998) Wheres the chief knowledge officer? British Medical Journal, 317, 832.
Hibble, A., Kanka, D., Pencheon, D., et al (1998) Guidelines in general practice: the new Tower of Babel? BMJ, 317, 862863.
Kilminster, S. M. & Jolly, B. C. (2000) Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: a literature review. Medical Education, 34, 827840.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lewis, A. (2002) Health informatics: information and communication. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8, 165171.
Liebowitz, J. (2000) Building Organisational Intelligence: A Knowledge Management Primer. Boca Raton, CA: CRC Press.
Macintosh, A. (1997) Position paper on knowledge asset management. http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~alm/kam.html.
McClelland, R. & Thomas, V. (2002) Confidentiality and security of clinical information in mental health practice. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8, 291296.
Margison, F. R., Barkham, M., Evans, C., et al (2000) Measurement and psychotherapy. Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 123130.
Menzies, T. (1999) Knowledge maintenance: the state of the art. Knowledge Engineering Review, 14, 146.
NHS Executive (1998) Information for Health: An Information Strategy for the Modern NHS 19982005. Wetherby: Department of Health.
Pee, B., Woodman, T., Fry, H., et al (2000) Practice-based learning: views on the development of a reflective learning tool. Medical Education, 34, 754761.[CrossRef][Medline]
Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., et al (1995) The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123, A12A13.[Medline]
Sackett, D. L., Richardson W. S., Rosenberg, W., et al (1997) Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach It. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Watson, I. (1999) Case-based reasoning is a methodology not a technology. Knowledge-Based Systems, 12, 303308.
Webb, S. P. (1998) Knowledge Management: Linchpin of Change. London: Association for Information Management.
Related articles in APT:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Davies Allocating resources in mental health: a clinician's guide to involvement Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., September 1, 2006; 12(5): 384 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Lelliott Secondary uses of patient information Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., May 1, 2003; 9(3): 221 - 228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Palmer Clinical governance: breathing new life into clinical audit Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., November 1, 2002; 8(6): 470 - 476. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Booton Commentary Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., September 1, 2002; 8(5): 395 - 396. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Psychiatric Bulletin | All RCPsych Journals |