Assessing clinical reasoning: a method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum

The aim of this study was to develop and trial a method to monitor the evolution of clinical reasoning in a PBL curriculum that is suitable for use in a large medical school. Termed Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs), it is based on the notion that clinical reasoning is dependent on the identification and correct interpretation of certain critical clinical features. Each problem consists of a clinical scenario comprising presentation, history and physical examination. Based on this information, subjects are asked to nominate the two most likely diagnoses and to list the clinical features that they considered in formulating their diagnoses, indicating whether these features supported or opposed the nominated diagnoses. Students at different levels of medical training completed a set of 10 CRPs as well as the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory, a self-reporting questionnaire designed to assess reasoning style. Responses were scored against those of a reference group of general practitioners. Results indicate that the CRPs are an easily administered, reliable and valid assessment of clinical reasoning, able to successfully monitor its development throughout medical training. Consequently, they can be employed to assess clinical reasoning skill in individual students and to evaluate the success of undergraduate medical schools in providing effective tuition in clinical reasoning.

Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients: putting a randomized controlled trial in the context of everyday practice

In a retrospective review, the telemedical management of 65 outpatients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of telemedicine for non-urgent referrals to a consultant neurologist was compared with the management of 76 patients seen face to face in the same trial, with that of 150 outpatients seen in the neurology clinics of district general hospitals and with that of 102 neurological outpatients seen by general physicians. Outcome measures were the numbers of investigations and of patient reviews. The telemedicine group did not differ significantly from the 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics in terms of either the number of investigations or the number of reviews they received. Patients from the RCT seen face to face had significantly fewer investigations but a similar number of reviews to the other 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists (the disparity in the number of investigations may explain the negative result for telemedicine in that RCT). Patients with neurological symptoms assessed by general physicians had significantly more investigations and were reviewed significantly more often than all the other groups. Patients from the RCT seen by telemedicine were not managed significantly differently from those seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics but had significantly fewer investigations and follow-ups than those patients managed by general physicians. The results suggest that management of new neurological outpatients by neurologists using telemedicine is similar to that by neurologists using a face-to-face consultation, and is more efficient than management by general physicians.

A review of guidelines and standards for telemedicine

We conducted a review to establish the range and scope of current telemedicine guidelines and standards. Published guidelines were identified by searching the Medline and Telemedicine Information Exchange (TIE) databases, and by performing a Google search using the term 'telemedicine guidelines'. Three types of guidelines were identified, namely clinical, operational and technical. Clinical guidelines included those for teleradiology, telepsychiatry, home telenursing, minor injuries telemedicine, surgical telemedicine, teledermatology and telepathology. Operational guidelines included those for email communication, Internet access and videoconferencing. Technical guidelines included those from the American Telemedicine Association and the US Office for the Advancement of Telehealth. The main standards relevant to telemedicine include those of the International Telecommunication Union and the DICOM standard. The scarcity of guidelines and standards suggests that telemedicine is not yet near to routine use. If an international telemedicine organization were to take responsibility for defining guidelines, under the direction of clinicians with appropriate telemedicine experience, this might speed up their development.