Abstract

The management of uncertainty in clinical practice has been an enduring topic of sociological scholarship. However, little of this addresses how uncertainty and non-knowledge are attributed to the self and other actors. We take the example of checking for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), part of infant screening in UK primary care, to examine the ‘double contingency’ of attributions of uncertainty and ignorance. Our data come from interviews with parents and General Practitioners (GPs), and observations of the six-week check conducted as part of a study to develop a checklist to aid GPs' diagnostic and referral decisions. Parents' pervasive uncertainties about managing with a new-born infant place them in a trusting relation to biomedicine, in which knowledge about infant hips is delegated to the clinical team: most described themselves as not-knowing about DDH. GPs focus on the uncertainties of applying sensory and experiential knowledge of infant bodies, in a consultation with more diffuse aims than screening for DDH. A prototype checklist, developed by orthopaedic specialists, was an explicit attempt to reduce uncertainty around thresholds for referral. However, using the checklist surfaced multiple logics of uncertainty. It also surfaced attributions of uncertainty and non-knowledge to other actors: orthopaedic specialists' assumptions about GPs' uncertain technical knowledge; GPs' assumptions about orthopaedic specialists' ignorance of the primary care setting; and clinicians' assumptions about the role of parental ignorance. This ‘double contingency’ of attributions of other actors' non-knowledge is a salient additional dimension to the uncertainty that infuses biomedical practice.

Highlights

  • This paper explores one specific case of such heterogeneity - screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in infants in primary care

  • We have described multiple sources of uncertainty that surround screening for DDH in primary care

  • Ontological uncertainty arises from inevitable limitations in the research evidence: DDH remains elusive, with debate about its aetiology, incidence, the best point to screen and appropriate treatment thresholds (Davies et al, 2020; Roposch & Wright, 2007; Shorter et al, 2013)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Guidelines and decision aids, they argue, can act as intermediaries between the different kinds of medical knowledge encapsulated in patient-centred and evidence-based medicine, with their “contradictory tendencies of subjective engagement and aggregated abstraction” (May et al, 2006: p1023). These technologies have the potential to distribute accountability and enact surveillance, through mechanisms such as decoupling individual experience from the clinical encounter, or providing a shared object (such as a guideline) that mediates the encounter between the patient's experience and abstract clinical knowledge. Their operation is likely to be both partial and contested: the heterogeneity of biomedicine might be difficult to stabilise

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call