Dataset Information

Improving decision accuracy using a clinical decision support system for medical students during history-taking: a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) can support medical students and physicians in providing evidence-based care. In this study, we investigate diagnostic accuracy based on the history of present illness between groups of medical students using a CDSS, Google, and neither (control). Further, the degree of diagnostic accuracy of medical students using a CDSS is compared with that of residents using neither a CDSS nor Google.

Methods

This study is a randomized educational trial. The participants comprised 64 medical students and 13 residents who rotated in the Department of General Medicine at Chiba University Hospital from May to December 2020. The medical students were randomly divided into the CDSS group (n = 22), Google group (n = 22), and control group (n = 20). Participants were asked to provide the three most likely diagnoses for 20 cases, mainly a history of a present illness (10 common and 10 emergent diseases). Each correct diagnosis was awarded 1 point (maximum 20 points). The mean scores of the three medical student groups were compared using a one-way analysis of variance. Furthermore, the mean scores of the CDSS, Google, and residents' (without CDSS or Google) groups were compared.

Results

The mean scores of the CDSS (12.0 ± 1.3) and Google (11.9 ± 1.1) groups were significantly higher than those of the control group (9.5 ± 1.7; p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively). The residents' group's mean score (14.7 ± 1.4) was higher than the mean scores of the CDSS and Google groups (p = 0.01). Regarding common disease cases, the mean scores were 7.4 ± 0.7, 7.1 ± 0.7, and 8.2 ± 0.7 for the CDSS, Google, and residents' groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in mean scores (p = 0.1).

Conclusions

Medical students who used the CDSS and Google were able to list differential diagnoses more accurately than those using neither. Furthermore, they could make the same level of differential diagnoses as residents in the context of common diseases.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on 24/12/2020 (unique trial number: UMIN000042831).

SUBMITTER: Yanagita Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10214648 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving decision accuracy using a clinical decision support system for medical students during history-taking: a randomized clinical trial.

Yanagita Yasutaka Y Shikino Kiyoshi K Ishizuka Kosuke K Uchida Shun S Li Yu Y Yokokawa Daiki D Tsukamoto Tomoko T Noda Kazutaka K Uehara Takanori T Ikusaka Masatomi M

BMC medical education 20230525 1

<h4>Background</h4>A clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) can support medical students and physicians in providing evidence-based care. In this study, we investigate diagnostic accuracy based on the history of present illness between groups of medical students using a CDSS, Google, and neither (control). Further, the degree of diagnostic accuracy of medical students using a CDSS is compared with that of residents using neither a CDSS nor Google.<h4>Methods</h4>This study is a randomized edu ...[more]

PMID: 37231512

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIt is crucial that teaching faculties determine and remain informed of medical school learners' clinical reasoning competence. We created an innovative assessment method for fourth-year medical students to identify deficiencies in various components of their clinical reasoning ability.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of fourth-year medical students' reasoning assessments from 2019 to 2022. Teams of four-five trainees questioned standardized patients in clinical scenarios, including fever, abdominal pain, and weight loss. They then individually documented key information to reflect comprehension of patient problems. Trainees were tasked with differentiating diagnoses and associated statuses and reaching the most likely diagnosis along with two tentative diagnoses. The correlations observed between 2020 and 2022 for abdominal pain were analyzed using student t-tests.ResultsA total of 177 students participated in this study. Across the scenarios, there was no significant difference in key information representation scores (56%-58%). Reasoning ability scores were 49% for fever, 57% for abdominal pain, and 61% for weight loss. A comparison between 2020 and 2022 revealed a significant improvement in the objective structured clinical examination scores and differential diagnoses (P < .01). Shortcomings included brief chief complaint duration, lack of detailed presentation, and insufficient description of negative information. Differential diagnosis and diagnostic justification were inadequate for acute and chronic conditions, and disease location clarity within the organ system was lacking. On average, students presented two correct diagnoses.ConclusionsFourth-year medical students exhibited inadequate reasoning abilities, particularly in fever and abdominal pain scenarios, with deficiencies in hypothesis generation and differential diagnosis. Group history-taking with individual reasoning assessment identified students' shortcomings and provided faculty feedback to improve their teaching strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The clinical reasoning process, which requires biomedical knowledge, knowledge about problem-solving strategies, and knowledge about reasons for diagnostic procedures, is a key element of physicians' daily practice but difficult to assess. The aim of this study was to empirically develop a Clinical Reasoning Indicators-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) and to assess the clinical reasoning ability of advanced medical students during a simulation involving history taking. METHODS:The Clinical Reasoning Indictors-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) including a 5-point Likert scale for assessment was designed from clinical reasoning indicators identified in a qualitative study in 2017. To assess indicators of clinical reasoning ability, 65 advanced medical students (semester 10, n =?25 versus final year, n =?40) from three medical schools participated in a 360-degree competence assessment in the role of beginning residents during a simulated first workday in hospital. This assessment included a consultation hour with five simulated patients which was videotaped. Videos of 325 patient consultations were assessed using the CRI-HT-S. A factor analysis was conducted and the students' results were compared according to their advancement in undergraduate medical training. RESULTS:The clinical reasoning indicators of the CRI-HT-S loaded on three factors relevant for clinical reasoning: 1) focusing questions, 2) creating context, and 3) securing information. Students reached significantly different scores (p <?.001) for the three factors (factor 1: 4.07?±?.47, factor 2: 3.72?±?.43, factor 3: 2.79?±?.83). Students in semester 10 reached significantly lower scores for factor 3 than students in their final year (p <?.05). CONCLUSIONS:The newly developed CRI-HT-S worked well for quantitative assessment of clinical reasoning indicators during history taking. Its three-factored structure helped to explore different aspects of clinical reasoning. Whether the CRI-HT-S has the potential to be used as a scale in objective structured clinical examinations (OCSEs) or in workplace-based assessments of clinical reasoning has to be investigated in further studies with larger student cohorts.

Project description:BackgroundReflective practice (RP) plays a crucial role in encouraging learners to think critically and consciously about their performances. Providing constructive feedback can further enhance RP. But non-Western learners might face different learning barriers compared to learners in the West, where RP originated.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we assessed RP and feedback performances on Thai medical students' patient history-taking skills. We applied RP and peer feedback, along with feedback from the instructors, during the history-taking sessions of the ten-week introduction course for fourth-year medical students. Twelve history-taking sessions were used for the analysis. Two instructors assessed students' reflective performance and categorised them into one of the six stages of Gibbs' reflective cycle; their feedback performances were analysed using Pendleton's model. We investigated the correlations between students' overall grade point average (GPAX) and patient history-taking scores on the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Students' opinions of the RP teaching method were also collected.ResultsAll (n = 48) students participated in our study. The students' mean age was 21.2 ± 0.5 years. The majority of the students were female (64.6%). The data indicated that 33 and 4% of the participants were categorised into the evaluation stage and action plan stage of Gibbs' reflective cycle, respectively. In addition, 22 and 15% of the participants were able to state what their peers did well and suggest how peers could improve their skills, respectively. All students passed the minimum passing level of four history-taking OSCE stations. Participants agreed that RP was a useful tool (mean 9.0, SD 0.1), which enhanced their thought processes (mean 8.4, SD 0.2) and future performances (mean 8.2, SD 0.2). However, there was no correlation between the students' highest Gibbs' reflection levels and their history-taking OSCE scores.ConclusionsRP, together with feedback, proved to be a useful technique to help fourth-year Thai medical students improve their reflection skills, enhance their medical knowledge, and improve patient history-taking skills. Further study with longer monitoring is required to further explore negative and positive influential factors affecting students' achievement of better reflection performances.

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) exist to support patients and physicians in establishing the correct diagnosis as early as possible. However, little evidence exists that supports the effectiveness of these DDSS. The objectives were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of medical students, with and without the use of a DDSS, and the diagnostic accuracy of the DDSS system itself, regarding the typical rheumatic diseases and to analyze the user experience.MethodsA total of 102 medical students were openly recruited from a university hospital and randomized (unblinded) to a control group (CG) and an intervention group (IG) that used a DDSS (Ada - Your Health Guide) to create an ordered diagnostic hypotheses list for three rheumatic case vignettes. Diagnostic accuracy, measured as the presence of the correct diagnosis first or at all on the hypothesis list, was the main outcome measure and evaluated for CG, IG, and DDSS.ResultsThe correct diagnosis was ranked first (or was present at all) in CG, IG, and DDSS in 37% (40%), 47% (55%), and 29% (43%) for the first case; 87% (94%), 84% (100%), and 51% (98%) in the second case; and 35% (59%), 20% (51%), and 4% (51%) in the third case, respectively. No significant benefit of using the DDDS could be observed. In a substantial number of situations, the mean probabilities reported by the DDSS for incorrect diagnoses were actually higher than for correct diagnoses, and students accepted false DDSS diagnostic suggestions. DDSS symptom entry greatly varied and was often incomplete or false. No significant correlation between the number of symptoms extracted and diagnostic accuracy was seen. It took on average 7 min longer to solve a case using the DDSS. In IG, 61% of students compared to 90% in CG stated that they could imagine using the DDSS in their future clinical work life.ConclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of medical students was superior to the DDSS, and its usage did not significantly improve students' diagnostic accuracy. DDSS usage was time-consuming and may be misleading due to prompting wrong diagnoses and probabilities.Trial registrationDRKS.de, DRKS00024433 . Retrospectively registered on February 5, 2021.

Dataset Information

Improving decision accuracy using a clinical decision support system for medical students during history-taking: a randomized clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Improving decision accuracy using a clinical decision support system for medical students during history-taking: a randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets