RESUMEN

AIM: To explore and describe acute care nurses' decisions to recognise and respond to improvement in patients' clinical states as they occurred in the real-world clinical environment. DESIGN: A descriptive study. METHODS: Nine medical and eleven surgical nurses in a large Australian metropolitan hospital were individually observed during nurse-patient interactions and followed up in interview to describe their reasoning and clinical judgements behind observed decisions. Verbal description of observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The three themes constructed from the data were as follows: nurses checking in; nurses reaching judgements about improvements; and nurses deciding on the best person to respond. Acute care nurses made targeted assessment decisions based on predicted safety risks related to improvement in clinical states. Subjective and objective cues were used to assess for and make judgements about patient improvement. Acute care nurses' judgment of patient safety and a desire to promote patient centred care guided their decisions to select the appropriate person to manage improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this research have demonstrated that the proven safety benefits of acute care nurses' decision making in response to deterioration extend to improvement in patients' clinical states. In response to improvement, acute care nurses' decisions protect patients from harm and promote recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Early recognition and response to improvement enable acute care nurses to protect patients from risks of unnecessary treatment and promote recovery. IMPACT: This study makes explicit nurses' essential safety role in recognising and responding to improvement in patients' clinical states. Healthcare policy and education must reflect the equal importance of assessment for and management of deterioration and improvement to ensure patients are protected and provided with safe care.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Language that assumes gender and sex are binary and aligned is pervasive in medicine and is often used when teaching on physiology and pathology. Information presented through this lens oversimplifies disease mechanisms and poorly addresses the health of gender and sexually diverse (GSD) individuals. We developed a training session to help faculty reference gender and sex in a manner that would be accurate and inclusive of GSD health. Methods: The 1-hour session for undergraduate and graduate medical educators highlighted cisgender and binary biases in medical teachings and introduced a getting-to-the-root mindset that prioritized teaching the processes underlying differences in disease profiles among gender and sex subpopulations. The training consisted of 30 minutes of didactic teaching and 20 minutes of small-group discussion. Medical education faculty attended and self-reported knowledge and awareness before and after the training. Results were compared using paired t tests. Expenses included fees for consultation and catering. Results: Forty faculty participated (pretraining survey n = 36, posttraining survey n = 21). After the training, there was a significant increase in self-reported awareness of the difference between gender and sex (p = .002), perceived relevance of gender to teachings (p = .04), and readiness to discuss physiological drivers of sex-linked disease (p = .005). Discussion: Participants reported increased understanding and consideration of gender and sex in medical education; feedback emphasized a desire for continued guidance. This easily adaptable session can provide an introduction to a series of medical teachings on gender and sex.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Video recordings of oncology interviews reveal how doctors rely on worry to establish medical expertise, facilitate treatment decision-making, and construct worry parameters to help patients understand whether there is a reasonable need for worry or not. Doctors express worry as frequently as cancer patients during oncology interviews, but they face a dilemma: how to provide care for cancer patients without directly stating they are worried about them? Plausible explanations are offered for why doctors do not state personal worries. Conversation analytic methods were employed to identify how doctors rely on worry to achieve distinct social actions. Four worry formulations are examined: (1) variations of "we worry" (and at times, non-specific and second person "you"), (2) hypothetical worry scenarios, (3) dismissing worry and offering assurance, and (4) doctors claiming they are not worried, bothered, or alarmed. Doctors align with and speak for the professionals and institutions they represent, expressing collective worries and claiming the legitimate right to worry (or not). Doctors also avoid abandoning patients to their own decision-making, yet do not formulate worry to coerce deference or dictate patients' choices. In all cases patients agreed and displayed minimal resistance to doctors' worry formulations. These findings contribute to ongoing work across institutional settings where participants have been shown to construct objective, legitimate claims meriting worries about diverse problems. Work is underway to examine when and how patients explicitly raise and doctors respond to cancer worries. Clinical implications are raised for how doctors can use worry to legitimize best treatment options, help patients minimize their worries, rely on hypothetical scenarios allowing patients to compare how other patients managed their cancer, and not dismiss the importance of minimizing the need to worry as a resource for offering reassurance.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Medical curricula implicitly teach that race has a biological basis. Clinical rotations reinforce this misconception as race-based algorithms are used to guide clinical decision-making. This module aims to expose the fallacy of race in clinical algorithms, using the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equation as an example. Methods: We created a 60-minute module in consultation with nephrologists. The format was an interactive, case-based presentation with a didactic section. A third-year medical student facilitated the workshops to medical students. Evaluation included pre/post surveys using 5-point Likert scales to assess awareness regarding use of race as a biological construct. Higher scores indicated increased awareness. Results: Fifty-five students participated in the module. Pre/post results indicated that students significantly improved in self-perceived knowledge of the history of racism in medicine (2.6 vs. 3.2, p < .001), awareness of race in clinical algorithms (2.7 vs. 3.7, p < .001), impact of race-based eGFR on quality of life/treatment outcomes (4.5 vs. 4.8, p = .01), differences between race and ancestry (3.7 vs. 4.3, p < .001), and implications of not removing race from the eGFR equation (2.7 vs. 4.2, p < .001). Students rated the workshops highly for quality and clarity. Discussion: Our module expands on others' work to expose the fallacy of race-based algorithms and define its impact on health equity. Limitations include a lack of objective assessment of knowledge acquisition. We recommend integrating this module into preclinical and clinical curricula to discuss the use of race in medical literature and clinical practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Chronic cerebrospinal fluid leak with spinal cord compression can mimic the symptoms of ALS, with a snake-eyes appearance on MRI.

RESUMEN

Medical educators have adopted a number of teaching-learning methodologies to make their sessions interactive considering the need for active engagement of students to strengthen the process of learning. One among them is the use of serious games, wherein digital applications are used to enable the attainment of the intended learning objectives. A wide range of serious games can be designed to target different areas in healthcare training, which cumulatively provide a holistic and engaging approach for students to acquire knowledge and develop skills. Owing to the extensive areas and domains in medical education wherein we can use serious games, the benefits attributed to them are immense. The successful introduction of serious games into the medical curriculum depends on several factors and we must adopt a systematic approach to optimize the benefits. In conclusion, the introduction of serious games into medical education can benefit medical students by helping them master multiple skills required for successful clinical practice. Acknowledging the changing landscapes in medical education, there is an immense need that teachers and administrators to explore the possibility of integrating these games into medical schools.

RESUMEN

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

RESUMEN

RATIONALE: Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In the present paper, we take issue with these claims. METHOD: We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence. RESULTS: We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory-that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Interpretation of dental radiographs is a difficult process, particularly for inexperienced students. This study introduced concept mapping for dental students to help in the radiographic interpretation of common jaw lesions. We aimed to analyze the efficacy of the concept map (CM) in radiographic interpretation, with a discussion of the diagnostic reasoning dilemma. METHODS: This study included 39 dental students. After a 1-h class for CM guidance and based on three group discussions and one-on-one feedback, the students completed and submitted CMs for three jaw diseases (ameloblastoma, odontogenic keratocyst, and simple bone cyst). All participants underwent a pretest and posttest of knowledge and diagnosis; all students but one completed an open-ended questionnaire regarding the use of CMs. RESULTS: Concept mapping effectively improved diagnostic accuracy. The participants' posttest scores were better than their pretest scores in both knowledge and diagnostic tests. Most of the students attempted radiographic interpretation through analytic reasoning. The time required for the students to draw a CM varied from student to student from 3-5 h to 1-3 days. CONCLUSION: This study shows that CMs can improve the radiographic diagnostic ability of dental students by providing a framework for analytic reasoning. Continuous research is warranted to improve the effectiveness of CM in oral radiographic interpretation in the dental student's class.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Management reasoning is a distinct subset of clinical reasoning. We sought to explore features to be considered when designing assessments of management reasoning. METHODS: This is a hybrid empirical research study, narrative review, and expert perspective. In 2021, we reviewed and discussed 10 videos of simulated (staged) physician-patient encounters, actively seeking actions that offered insights into assessment of management reasoning. We analyzed our own observations in conjunction with literature on clinical reasoning assessment, using a constant comparative qualitative approach. RESULTS: Distinguishing features of management reasoning that will influence its assessment include management scripts, shared decision-making, process knowledge, illness-specific knowledge, and tailoring of the encounter and management plan. Performance domains that merit special consideration include communication, integration of patient preferences, adherence to the management script, and prognostication. Additional facets of encounter variation include the clinical problem, clinical and nonclinical patient characteristics (including preferences, values, and resources), team/system characteristics, and encounter features. We cataloged several relevant assessment approaches including written/computer-based, simulation-based, and workplace-based modalities, and a variety of novel response formats. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of management reasoning could be improved with attention to the performance domains, facets of variation, and variety of approaches herein identified.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Clinical reasoning enables safe patient care and is an important competency in medical education but can be challenging to teach. Illness scripts facilitate clinical reasoning but have not been used to create pediatric curricula. Methods: We created CRISP (Clinical Reasoning with Illness Scripts in Pediatrics), a curriculum comprising four 1-hour learning sessions that deliberately incorporated clinical reasoning concepts and illness scripts to organize how four common chief complaints were taught to family medicine residents on inpatient pediatric rotations. We performed a multisite curriculum evaluation project over 6 months with family medicine residents at four institutions to assess whether the use of clinical reasoning concepts to structure CRISP was feasible and acceptable for learners and instructors and whether the use of illness scripts increased knowledge of four common pediatric chief complaints. Results: For all learning sessions, family medicine residents and pediatric hospitalists agreed that CRISP's format was preferable to traditional didactic lectures. Pre-/posttest scores showed statistically significant increases in family medicine resident knowledge (respiratory distress [n = 42]: pretest, 72%, posttest, 92%; abdominal pain [n = 44]: pretest, 82%, posttest, 96%; acute febrile limp [n = 44]: pretest, 68%, posttest, 81%; well-appearing febrile infant [n = 42]: pretest, 58%, posttest, 73%; ps < .05). Discussion: By using clinical reasoning concepts and illness script comparison to structure a pediatric curriculum, CRISP represents a novel instructional approach that can be used by pediatric hospitalists to increase family medicine resident knowledge about diagnoses associated with common pediatric chief complaints.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Dyspnea can be found as a symptom of a wide range of diseases. Clinical thinking usually leads us to more common or frequent syndromes and diseases. This case report alerts us to keep investigating when faced with therapeutic failure or the arising of new symptoms. The subject in this case had dyspnea as an initial presentation of his disease and was treated initially as a case of heart dysfunction. Nevertheless, because his symptoms did not respond to the treatment and even got worse, he was sent to the emergency room where he was medicated and discharged with the same diagnostic hypothesis. In light of a new characteristic symptom - ptosis - the hospital team expanded its clinical and laboratory investigation to neuromuscular diseases, reaching out the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis.

RESUMEN

Numerous studies have demonstrated that our healthcare systems and medical education programs are fundamentally flawed. In North America and Europe, most systems were built upon values and structures that have historically benefitted middle and upper class males of European descent in the global north. As a result, there continue to be systemic biases that are pervasive throughout our healthcare systems and medical education programs. This has led to inequities in health outcomes and clinical reasoning practices which marginalize several communities. These biases are perpetuated as we continue to lead medical education research and practice with traditional values and views of evidence. To address these issues, we proposed a 'flipped' conference in which three interdisciplinary writing teams, comprised of both junior and senior academics, clinicians, and researchers, were invited to rethink the foundations of clinical reasoning. In the months leading up to the conference, each writing team explored a specific topic related to clinical reasoning and racial equity. The papers, presented during the virtual conference are now available in this issue of the Journal for the Evaluation of Clinical Practice. In addition, 6 more publications were added to this special topic to showcase new evidence and theory that builds on the recommendations in the three core papers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Early descriptions of clinical reasoning have described a dual process model that relies on analytical or nonanalytical approaches to develop a working diagnosis. In this classic research, clinical reasoning is portrayed as an individual-driven cognitive process based on gathering information from the patient encounter, forming mental representations that rely on previous experience and engaging developed patterns to drive working diagnoses and management plans. Indeed, approaches to patient safety, as well as teaching and assessing clinical reasoning focus on the individual clinician, often ignoring the complexity of the system surrounding the diagnostic process. More recent theories and evidence portray clinical reasoning as a dynamic collection of processes that takes place among and between persons across clinical settings. Yet, clinical reasoning, taken as both an individual and a system process, is insufficiently supported by theories of cognition based on individual clinicals and lacks the specificity needed to describe the phenomenology of clinical reasoning. In this review, we reinforce that the modern healthcare ecosystem - with its people, processes and technology - is the context in which health care encounters and clinical reasoning take place.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Clinical reasoning, specifically diagnostic decision-making, has been a subject of fragmented literature since the 1970s, marked by diverse theories and conflicting perspectives. This article reviews the latest evidence in medical education, drawing from scientific literature, to offer ophthalmologists insights into optimal strategies for personal learning and the education of others. It explores the historical development of clinical reasoning theories, emphasising the challenges in understanding how doctors formulate diagnoses. The importance of clinical reasoning is underscored by its role in making accurate diagnoses and preventing diagnostic errors. The article delves into the dual process theory, distinguishing between type 1 and type 2 thinking and their implications for clinical decision-making. Cognitive load theory is introduced as a crucial aspect, highlighting the limited capacity of working memory and its impact on the diagnostic process. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is explored as a framework for optimal learning environments, emphasising the importance of scaffolding and deliberate practice in skill development. The article discusses semantic competence, mental representation, and the interplay of different memory stores-semantic, episodic, and procedural-in enhancing diagnostic proficiency. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is introduced as a student-centric approach, emphasising goal setting, metacognition, and continuous improvement. Practical advice is provided for minimising cognitive errors in clinical reasoning, applying dual process theory, and considering cognitive load theory in teaching. The relevance of deliberate practice in ophthalmology, especially in a rapidly evolving field, is emphasised for continuous learning and staying updated with advancements. The article concludes by highlighting the importance of clinical supervisors in recognising and supporting trainees' self-regulated learning and understanding the principles of various teaching and learning theories. Ultimately, a profound comprehension of the science behind clinical reasoning is deemed fundamental for ophthalmologists to deliver high-quality, evidence-based care and foster critical thinking skills in the dynamic landscape of ophthalmology.

RESUMEN

We present the case of a 37-year-old male with Weil's disease, a severe form of leptospirosis, who presented without typical ecological risk factors. Initially manifesting as weakness, muscle aches, and fever, the patient rapidly deteriorated, necessitating ICU admission due to septic shock and respiratory failure. Despite initial diagnostic challenges, including normal initial imaging and inconclusive laboratory findings, a presumptive diagnosis of leptospirosis was made using Modified Faine's criteria. Empirical antibiotic treatment with doxycycline led to significant clinical improvement, highlighting the importance of early recognition and treatment in severe cases of leptospirosis. This case underscores the need for heightened clinical suspicion and the use of diagnostic scoring systems, even in atypical presentations, to facilitate timely intervention and improve patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Deliberate reflection on initial diagnosis has been found to repair diagnostic errors. We investigated the effectiveness of teaching students to use deliberate reflection on future cases and whether their usage would depend on their perception of case difficulty. METHOD: One-hundred-nineteen medical students solved cases either with deliberate-reflection or without instructions to reflect. One week later, all participants solved six cases, each with two equally likely diagnoses, but some symptoms in the case were associated with only one of the diagnoses (discriminating features). Participants provided one diagnosis and subsequently wrote down everything they remembered from it. After the first three cases, they were told that the next three would be difficult cases. Reflection was measured by the proportion of discriminating features recalled (overall; related to their provided diagnosis; related to alternative diagnosis). RESULTS: The deliberate-reflection condition recalled more features for the alternative diagnosis than the control condition (p = .013) regardless of described difficulty. They also recalled more features related to their provided diagnosis on the first three cases (p = .004), but on the last three cases (described as difficult), there was no difference. CONCLUSION: Learning deliberate reflection helped students engage in more reflective reasoning when solving future cases.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Bedside cardiac assessment (BCA) is deficient across a spectrum of noncardiology trainees. Learners not taught BCA well may become instructors who do not teach well, creating a self-perpetuating problem. To improve BCA teaching and learning, we developed a high-quality, patient-centered curriculum for medicine clerkship students that could be flexibly implemented and accessible to other health professions learners. Methods: With a constructivist perspective, we aligned learning goals, activities, and assessments. The curriculum used a "listen before you auscultate" framework, capturing patient history as context for a six-step, systematic approach. In the flipped classroom, short videos and practice questions preceded two 1-hour class activities that integrated diagnostic reasoning, pathophysiology, physical diagnosis, and reflection. Activities included case discussions, jugular venous pressure evaluation, heart sound competitions, and simulated conversations with patients. Two hundred sixty-eight students at four US and international medical schools participated. We incorporated feedback, performed thematic analysis, and assessed learners' confidence and knowledge. Results: Low posttest data capture limited quantitative results. Students reported increased confidence in BCA ability. Knowledge increased in both BCA and control groups. Thematic analysis suggested instructional design strategies were effective and peer encounters, skills practice, and encounters with educators were meaningful. Discussion: The curriculum supported active learning of day-to-day clinical competencies and promoted professional identity formation alongside BCA ability. Feedback and increased confidence on the late-clerkship posttest suggested durable learning. We recommend approaches to confirm this and other elements of knowledge, skill acquisition, or behaviors and are surveying impacts on professional identity formation-related constructs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Recent work in cognitive psychology and experimental semantics indicates that people do not categorize natural kinds solely by virtue of their purported scientific essence. Two attempts have been made to explain away the data by appealing to the idea that participants in these studies are reasoning diagnostically. I will argue that an appeal to diagnostic reasoning will likely not help to explain away the data.

Asunto(s)