Dataset Information

A mixed-methods exploration of cognitive dispositions to respond and clinical reasoning errors with multiple choice questions.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Cognitive dispositions to respond (i.e., cognitive biases and heuristics) are well-established clinical reasoning phenomena. While thought by many to be error-prone, some scholars contest that these cognitive dispositions to respond are pragmatic solutions for reasoning through clinical complexity that are associated with errors largely due to hindsight bias and flawed experimental design. The purpose of this study was to prospectively identify cognitive dispositions to respond occurring during clinical reasoning to determine whether they are actually associated with increased odds of an incorrect answer (i.e., error). METHODS:Using the cognitive disposition to respond framework, this mixed-methods study applied a constant comparative qualitative thematic analysis to transcripts of think alouds performed during completion of clinical-vignette multiple-choice questions. The number and type of cognitive dispositions to respond associated with both correct and incorrect answers were identified. Participants included medical students, residents, and attending physicians recruited using maximum variation strategies. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations binary logistic model for repeated, within-subjects measures. RESULTS:Among 14 participants, there were 3 cognitive disposition to respond categories - Cognitive Bias, Flaws in Conceptual Understanding, and Other Vulnerabilities - with 13 themes identified from the think aloud transcripts. The odds of error increased to a statistically significant degree with a greater per-item number of distinct Cognitive Bias themes (OR?=?1.729, 95% CI [1.226, 2.437], p =?0.002) and Other Vulnerabilities themes (OR?=?2.014, 95% CI [1.280, 2.941], p

SUBMITTER: Surry LT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6251119 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A mixed-methods exploration of cognitive dispositions to respond and clinical reasoning errors with multiple choice questions.

Surry Luke T LT Torre Dario D Trowbridge Robert L RL Durning Steven J SJ

BMC medical education 20181123 1

<h4>Background</h4>Cognitive dispositions to respond (i.e., cognitive biases and heuristics) are well-established clinical reasoning phenomena. While thought by many to be error-prone, some scholars contest that these cognitive dispositions to respond are pragmatic solutions for reasoning through clinical complexity that are associated with errors largely due to hindsight bias and flawed experimental design. The purpose of this study was to prospectively identify cognitive dispositions to respon ...[more]

PMID: 30470223

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImproving clinical reasoning skills-the thought processes used by clinicians to formulate appropriate questions and diagnoses-is essential for reducing missed diagnostic opportunities. The electronic Clinical Reasoning Educational Simulation Tool (eCREST) was developed to improve the clinical reasoning of future physicians. A feasibility trial demonstrated acceptability and potential impacts; however, the processes by which students gathered data were unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the data gathering patterns of final year medical students while using eCREST and how eCREST influences the patterns.MethodsA mixed methods design was used. A trial of eCREST across 3 UK medical schools (N=148) measured the potential effects of eCREST on data gathering. A qualitative think-aloud and semistructured interview study with 16 medical students from one medical school identified 3 data gathering strategies: Thorough, Focused, and Succinct. Some had no strategy. Reanalysis of the trial data identified the prevalence of data gathering patterns and compared patterns between the intervention and control groups. Patterns were identified based on 2 variables that were measured in a patient case 1 month after the intervention: the proportion of Essential information students identified and the proportion of irrelevant information gathered (Relevant). Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Essential but in the lowest quartile for Relevant displayed a Thorough pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Relevant but in the lowest quartile for Essential displayed a Succinct pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles on both variables displayed a Focused pattern. Those whose scores were in the lowest quartile on both variables displayed a Nonspecific pattern.ResultsThe trial results indicated that students in the intervention group were more thorough than those in the control groups when gathering data. The qualitative data identified data gathering strategies and the mechanisms by which eCREST influenced data gathering. Students reported that eCREST promoted thoroughness by prompting them to continuously reflect and allowing them to practice managing uncertainty. However, some found eCREST to be less useful, and they randomly gathered information. Reanalysis of the trial data revealed that the intervention group was significantly more likely to display a Thorough data gathering pattern than controls (21/78, 27% vs 6/70, 9%) and less likely to display a Succinct pattern (13/78, 17% vs 20/70, 29%; χ23=9.9; P=.02). Other patterns were similar across groups.ConclusionsQualitative data suggested that students applied a range of data gathering strategies while using eCREST and that eCREST encouraged thoroughness by continuously prompting the students to reflect and manage their uncertainty. Trial data suggested that eCREST led students to demonstrate more Thorough data gathering patterns. Virtual patients that encourage thoroughness could help future physicians avoid missed diagnostic opportunities and enhance the delivery of clinical reasoning teaching.

Project description:PurposeTo test the null hypothesis that exposure to societal cost information does not affect choice of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).MethodsWe enrolled 304 participants using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform to complete a survey in which participants were given the choice between carpal tunnel release (CTR) or a less-expensive option (orthosis wear) in a hypothetical mild CTS scenario. Patients were randomized to receive information about the societal cost of CTR (cost cohort) or no cost information (control). The primary outcome was the probability of choosing CTR measured on a 6-point ordinal scale. We employed qualitative content analysis to evaluate participants' rationale for their choice. We also explored agreement with various attitudes toward health care costs on an ordinal scale.ResultsParticipants in the cost cohort exhibited a greater probability of choosing surgery than those in the control cohort. The relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.85). Among participants who had not previously been diagnosed with CTS (n = 232), the relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.06). Lack of personal monetary responsibility frequently emerged as a theme in those in the cost cohort who chose surgery. The majority (94%) of participants expressed at least some agreement that health care cost is a major problem whereas only 58% indicated that they consider the country's health care costs when making treatment decisions.ConclusionsParticipants who received societal cost information were more likely to choose the more expensive treatment option (CTR) for mild CTS.Clinical relevanceExposure to societal cost information may influence patient decision making in elective hand surgery. A complete understanding of this influence is required prior to implementing processes toward greater cost transparency for diagnostic/treatment options. Sharing out-of-pocket costs with patients may be a beneficial approach because discussing societal cost information alone will likely not improve value of care.

Project description:BackgroundReporting of medication errors is one of the essential mechanisms to identify risky health care systems and practices that lead to medication errors. Unreported medication errors are a real issue; one of the identified causes is a burdensome medication error reporting system. An anonymous and user-friendly mobile app for reporting medication errors could be an alternative method of reporting medication error in busy health care settings.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to report usability testing of the Medication Error Reporting App (MERA), a mobile app for reporting medication errors anonymously.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative methods were employed involving 45 different testers (pharmacists, doctors, and nurses) from a large tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Quantitative data was retrieved using task performance and rating of MERA and qualitative data were retrieved through focus group discussions. Three sessions, with 15 testers each session, were conducted from January to March 2018.ResultsThe majority of testers were pharmacists (23/45, 51%), female (35/45, 78%), and the mean age was 36 (SD 9) years. A total of 135 complete reports were successfully submitted by the testers (three reports per tester) and 79.2% (107/135) of the reports were correct. There was significant improvement in mean System Usability Scale scores in each session of the development process (P<.001) and mean time to report medication errors using the app was not significantly different between each session (P=.70) with an overall mean time of 6.7 (SD 2.4) minutes. Testers found the app easy to use, but doctors and nurses were unfamiliar with terms used especially medication process at which error occurred and type of error. Although, testers agreed the app can be used in the future for reporting, they were apprehensive about security, validation, and abuse of feedback featured in the app.ConclusionsMERA can be used to report medication errors easily by various health care personnel and it has the capacity to provide feedback on reporting. However, education on medication error reporting should be provided to doctors and nurses in Malaysia and the security of the app needs to be established to boost reporting by this method.

Project description:BackgroundNurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.InterventionThe Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.ObjectivesWe investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives.Setting and participantsIn three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.MethodsThis mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.ResultsWe recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers.ImplicationsADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes.RegistrationNLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:ObjectiveThe success of COVID-19 vaccination programs relies on community attitudes, yet little is known about parents' views. We aimed to explore the reasons behind Australian parents' vaccine intentions for themselves and for their children.MethodThis mixed methods study relates to Wave 13 (January 2021) of a longitudinal study of Australian parents' experiences during COVID-19 and contained 1094 participants (83% mothers). We used multinomial logistic regression to understand demographic predictors of vaccine intention, and a descriptive template thematic analysis to analyse open-ended questions about parents' reasons for vaccine intentions for themselves and their children.Results64% of Australian parents intend on vaccination, 26% are unsure and 9% intend to decline; 48% intend to vaccinate their children, 38% are unsure, and 14% intend to decline. Relative to those intending to vaccinate, parents unsure (OR = -0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, -0.84, p = .002) or not intending (OR = -0.41, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.67 p < .001) to vaccinate were more likely to have lower trust in doctors. Similar predictors emerged for parents who did not intend to vaccinate their children (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.70, p < .001). Qualitative data indicated that many parents had not made a firm decision, including a lack of alignment between intentions and reasons. For example, parents who said 'yes' to vaccination, often then expressed hesitance and a focus on risks in their written response. Reasons for hesitancy for themselves included concerns about testing, side effects, and long-term outcomes. Similar themes were present for children, but parents expressed a strong desire to protect their children, and an eagerness for health information.ConclusionBased on prior research and the themes identified here, a multipronged campaign that includes education/promotion, good access to vaccines and role models, is likely to support parents to make informed decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate patients' experiences of the choice of general practitioner (GP) practice pilot. DESIGN:Mixed-method, cross-sectional study. SETTING:Patients in the UK National Health Service (NHS) register with a general practice responsible for their primary medical care and practices set geographic boundaries. In 2012/2013, 43 volunteer general practices in four English NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) piloted a scheme allowing patients living outside practice boundaries to register as an out of area patient or be seen as a day patient. PARTICIPANTS:Analysis of routine data for 1108 out of area registered patients and 250 day patients; postal survey of out of area registered (315/886, 36%) and day (64/188, 34%) patients over 18?years of age, with a UK mailing address; comparison with General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS); semistructured interviews with 24 pilot patients. RESULTS:Pilot patients were younger and more likely to be working than non-pilot patients at the same practices and reported generally more or at least as positive experiences than patients registered at the same practices, practices in the same PCT and nationally, despite belonging to subgroups of the population who typically report poorer than average experiences. Out of area patients who joined a pilot practice did so: after moving house and not wanting to change practice (26.2%); for convenience (32.6%); as newcomers to an area who selected a practice although they lived outside its boundary (23.6%); because of dissatisfaction with their previous practice (13.9%). Day patients attended primarily on grounds of convenience (68.8%); 51.6% of the day patient visits were for acute infections, most commonly upper respiratory infections (20.4%). Sixty-six per cent of day patients received a prescription during their visit. CONCLUSIONS:Though the 12-month pilot was too brief to identify all costs and benefits, the scheme provided a positive experience for participating patients and practices.

Dataset Information

A mixed-methods exploration of cognitive dispositions to respond and clinical reasoning errors with multiple choice questions.

Publications

A mixed-methods exploration of cognitive dispositions to respond and clinical reasoning errors with multiple choice questions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets