Clinical reasoning: The relative contribution of identification, interpretation and hypothesis errors to misdiagnosis

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the types of errors in clinical reasoning that contribute to poor diagnostic performance at different levels of medical training and experience. Three cohorts of subjects, second- and fourth- (final) year medical students and a group of general practitioners, completed a set of clinical reasoning problems. The responses of those whose scores fell below the 25th centile were analysed to establish the stage of the clinical reasoning process - identification of relevant information, interpretation or hypothesis generation - at which most errors occurred and whether this was dependent on problem difficulty and level of medical experience. Results indicate that hypothesis errors decrease as expertise increases but that identification and interpretation errors increase. This may be due to inappropriate use of pattern recognition or to failure of the knowledge base. Furthermore, although hypothesis errors increased in line with problem difficulty, identification and interpretation errors decreased. A possible explanation is that as problem difficulty increases, subjects at all levels of expertise are less able to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant clinical features and so give equal consideration to all information contained within a case. It is concluded that the development of clinical reasoning in medical students throughout the course of their pre-clinical and clinical education may be enhanced by both an analysis of the clinical reasoning process and a specific focus on each of the stages at which errors commonly occur.

The association between student characteristics and the development of clinical reasoning in a graduate-entry, PBL medical programme

This study sought to assess the extent to which the entry characteristics of students in a graduate-entry medical programme predict the subsequent development of clinical reasoning ability. Subjects comprised 290 students voluntarily recruited from three successive cohorts of the University of Queensland's MBBS Programme. Clinical reasoning was measured once a year over a period of three years using two methods, a set of 10 Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs) and the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI). Data on gender, age at entry into the programme, nature of primary degree, scores on selection criteria (written examination plus interview) and academic performance in the first two years of the programme were recorded for each student, and their association with clinical reasoning skill analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis indicated significant associations between CRP score, gender and primary degree with a significant but small association between DTI and interview score. Stage of progression through the programme was also an important predictor of performance on both indicators. Subsequent multivariate analysis suggested that female gender is a positive predictor of CRP score independently of the nature of a subject's primary degree and stage of progression through the programme, although these latter two variables are interdependent. Positive predictors of clinical reasoning skill are stage of progression through the MBBS programme, female gender and interview score. Although the nature of a student's primary degree is important in the early years of the programme, evidence suggests that by graduation differences between students' clinical reasoning skill due to this factor have been resolved.

The clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts. A group of 21 experienced general practitioners were asked to complete the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI) and a set of 10 clinical reasoning problems (CRPs) to evaluate their clinical reasoning. Both the DTI and the CRPs were scored, and the CRP response patterns of each GP examined in terms of the number and type of errors contained in them. Analysis of these data showed that six GPs were able to reach the correct diagnosis using significantly less clinical information than their colleagues. These GPs also made significantly fewer interpretation errors but scored lower on both the DTI and the CRPs. Additionally, this analysis showed that more than 20% of misdiagnoses occurred despite no errors being made in the identification and interpretation of relevant clinical information. These results indicate that these six GPs diagnose efficiently, effectively and accurately using relatively few clinical data and can therefore be classified as diagnostic experts. They also indicate that a major cause of misdiagnoses is failure to properly integrate clinical data. We suggest that increased emphasis on this step in the reasoning process should prove beneficial to the development of clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students.

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.

Promoting and providing expert guidance in work-intensive clinical settings

This paper discusses how expert guidance can be best provided in work intensive clinical settings. The adequacy for supporting learning in the clinical practicum for health care disciplines is often complicated by the intensive work practices in healthcare settings. Often, clinicians' work is so intense that the scope for providing close guidance for students is quite restricted. The case advanced here draws on a range of empirical work to propose how clinician-student interactions might be optimized through the provision of a clinical ccn guided learning such as demonstrating and role-modeling. These roles can contribute in essential ways to the development of learning environments where clinicians have the opportunity to facilitate the learning of others as part of their workload, and without being burdened by the requirements of teaching and assessment processes. It differs from other approaches because although clinicians partner students and provide feedback to them, clinicians are not expected to formally assess or award a grade for student performance. Assessment and remedial action, when required, is undertaken by the role of a designated clinical supervisor qualified to perform such activities. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Interprofessional education in clinical practice: Not a single vaccine

In increasingly complex health service environments, the quality of teamwork and co-operation between doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, is 'under the microscope'. Interprofessional education (IPE), a process whereby health professionals learn 'from, with and about each other', is advocated as a response to widespread calls for improved communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals. Although there is much that is commendable in IPE, the authors caution that the benefits may be overstated if too much is attributed to, or expected of, IPE activities. The authors propose that clarity is required around what can realistically be achieved. Furthermore, engagement with clinicians in the clinical practice setting who are instrumental in assisting students make sense of their knowledge through practice, is imperative for sustainable outcomes. © AHHA 2010.

The mini clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) for assessing clinical performance of international medical graduates

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, reliability and acceptability of the mini clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) for performance assessment among international medical graduates (IMGs). Design, setting and participants: Observational study of 209 patient encounters involving 28 IMGs and 35 examiners at three metropolitan teaching hospitals in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, September-December 2006. Main outcome measures: The reliability of the mini-CEX was estimated using generatisability (G) analysis, and its acceptability was evaluated by a written survey of the examiners and IMGs. Results: The G coefficient for eight encounters was 0.88, suggesting that the reliability of the mini-CEX was 0.90 for 10 encounters. Almost half of the IMGs (7/16) and most examiners (14/18) were satisfied with the mini-CEX as a learning tool. Most of the IMGs and examiners enjoyed the immediate feedback, which is a strong component of the tool. Conclusion: The mini-CEX is a reliable tool for performance assessment of IMGs, and is acceptable to and well received by both learners and supervisors.

Clinical teaching: Maintaining an educational role for doctors in the new health care environment

Context and objectives: Good clinical teaching is central to medical education but there is concern about maintaining this in contemporary, pressured health care environments. This paper aims to demonstrate that good clinical practice is at the heart of good clinical teaching. Methods: Seven roles are used as a framework for analysing good clinical teaching. The roles are medical expert, communicator, collaborator, manager, advocate, scholar and professional. Results: The analysis of clinical teaching and clinical practice demonstrates that they are closely linked. As experts, clinical teachers are involved in research, information retrieval and sharing of knowledge or teaching. Good communication with trainees, patients and colleagues defines teaching excellence. Clinicians can 'teach' collaboration by acting as role models and by encouraging learners to understand the responsibilities of other health professionals. As managers, clinicians can apply their skills to the effective management of learning resources. Similarly skills as advocates at the individual, community and population level can be passed on in educational encounters. The clinicians' responsibilities as scholars are most readily applied to teaching activities. Clinicians have clear roles in taking scholarly approaches to their practice and demonstrating them to others. Conclusion: Good clinical teaching is concerned with providing role models for good practice, making good practice visible and explaining it to trainees. This is the very basis of clinicians as professionals, the seventh role, and should be the foundation for the further development of clinicians as excellent clinical teachers.

In-training assessment - Its potential in enhancing clinical teaching

Context In-training assessment (ITA) has established its place alongside formative and summative assessment at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level. In this paper the authors aimed to identify those characteristics of ITA that could enhance clinical teaching. Methods A literature review and discussions by an expert working group at the Ninth Cambridge Conference identified the aspects of ITA that could enhance clinical teaching. Results The features of ITA identified included defining the specific benefits to the learner, teacher and institution, and highlighting the patient as the context for ITA and clinical teaching. The ‘mapping’ of a learner’s progress towards the clinical teaching objectives by using multiple assessments over time, by multiple observers in both a systematic and opportunistic way correlates with the incremental nature of reaching clinical competence. Conclusions The importance of ITA based on both direct and indirect evidence of what the learner actually does in the real clinical setting is emphasized. Particular attention is given to addressing concerns in the more controversial areas of assessor training, ratings and documentation for ITA. Areas for future research are also identified.

The good, the bad and the ugly of bone-anchored prostheses: Guideline to assess true clinical outcomes

The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework to determine the true clinical outcomes of bone-anchored prostheses. Scientists, clinicians and policy makers are encouraged to implement their own evaluations relying on the proposed framework using a single database to facilitate reflective practice and, eventually, robust prospective studies.

Salt in the desert: A comparison of clinical versus serum-calculated osmolality determination of dehydration

Background: Clinicians frequently use their own judgement to assess patient’s hydration status although there is limited evidence for the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically assessed dehydration in older hospital patients (using multiple symptoms), versus dehydration measured using serum-calculated osmolality (CO) as the reference standard. Method: Participants were 44 hospital patients aged ≥ 60 years. Dehydration was assessed clinically and pathologically (CO) within 24 hours of admission and at study exit. Indicators of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results: Clinicians identified 27% of patients as dehydrated at admission, and 19% at exit, compared to 19% and 16% using CO. Agreement between the measures was fair at admission and poor at exit. Clinical assessment showed poor sensitivity for predicting dehydration with reasonable specificity. Conclusions: Compared to the use of CO, clinical assessment of dehydration in older patients was poor. Given that failure to identify dehydration in this population may have serious consequences, we recommend that clinicians do not rely upon their own assessments without also using the reference standard.