Physician clinical management strategies and reasoning: a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith KL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4021187 | biostudies-other | 2014 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Physician clinical management strategies and reasoning: a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions.
Smith Kristofer L KL Ashburn Sarah S Aminawung Jenerius A JA Mann Micah M Ross Joseph S JS
BMC health services research 20140417
<h4>Background</h4>Physicians often select clinical management strategies not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines. Our objective was to examine the likelihood of selecting, and rationale for pursuing, clinical management strategies with more or less guideline support among physicians using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of attending physicians and housestaff at one internal medicine pro ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPhysicians play a key role in mitigating and managing costs in healthcare which are rising.ObjectiveConduct a cross-sectional survey in 2017, comparing results to a 2012 survey to understand US physicians' evolving attitudes and strategies concerning healthcare costs.ParticipantsRandom sample of 1200 US physicians from the AMA Masterfile.MeasuresPhysician views on responsibility for costs of care, enthusiasm for cost-saving strategies, cost-consciousness scale, and practice strategies on addressing cost.Key resultsAmong 1200 physicians surveyed in 2017, 489 responded (41%). In 2017, slightly more physicians reported that physicians have a major responsibility for addressing healthcare costs (32% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). In 2017, more physicians attributed "major responsibility" for addressing healthcare costs to pharmaceutical companies (68% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and hospital and health systems (63% vs. 56%%, p = 0.008) in contrast to 2012. Fewer respondents in 2017 attributed major responsibility for addressing costs to trial lawyers (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) and patients (42% vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) as compared to 2012. Physician enthusiasm for patient-focused cost-containment strategies like high deductible health plans and higher co-pays (62% vs. 42%, p < 0.0001 and 62% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001, not enthusiastic, respectively) declined. Physicians reported that when they discussed cost, it resulted in a change in disease management 56% of the time. Cost-consciousness within surveyed physicians had not changed meaningfully in 2017 since 2012 (31.7 vs. 31.2). Most physicians continued to agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful in their practice (> 70%). After adjusting for specialty, political affiliation, practice setting, age, and gender, only democratic/independent affiliation remained a significant predictor of cost-consciousness.Conclusions and relevanceUS physicians increasingly attribute responsibility for rising healthcare costs to organizations and express less enthusiasm for strategies that increase patient out-of-pocket cost. Interventions that focus on physician knowledge and communication strategies regarding cost of care may be helpful.
| S-EPMC7351917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was announced on March 11th, 2020, due to a surge of newly confirmed cases that significantly impacted populations worldwide, both directly and indirectly. Based on past epidemics research, the mental health implications of introduced restrictions should be expected and adequately addressed irrespective of the practiced profession. Objective: The study aimed to explore psychopathological responses, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), concerning coping strategy clusters during the COVID-19 pandemic among medical and non-medical workers. Methods: A cross-sectional web survey of the general population of internet users was performed from March 16th to April 26th, 2020, in Poland during the first peak of COVID-19 cases. A sample of 1,831 professionally active respondents, 64.0% of which pursuing a medical career, filled out General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28), The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and MiniCOPE, along with the socio-demographic questionnaire exploring personal as well as the work-related possibility of direct exposure to contagion and availability of proper protection, contact with the infected without accurate protective measures as well as the adequacy of workers when compared settings. Results: Individuals labeled with specific clusters had significantly different psychopathological manifestations. Irrespective of performed job maladaptive cluster was associated with significantly higher GHQ-28 and IES-R scores on total subscales and all subscales compared to those representing the non-specific and adaptive cluster. Similar findings were observed concerning the frequency of the GHQ-28 positive score. Moreover, the non-specific cluster was associated with significantly higher GHQ-28 total scores among medical professionals. However, GHQ-28 positive scores were significantly more frequent in medical workers using adaptive clusters when compared to non-specific. Such relations were not observed in the non-medical group. IES-R total and subscales' scores did not significantly vary within medical and non-medical groups when adaptive and non-specific clusters were compared. Pursuing a non-medical career was found to be a determinant of lower scores, while female sex was observed to be determinant of higher scores in both GHQ-28 and IES-R scales. Conclusions: Positive screening for psychopathological and PTSD symptoms was expected regardless of the analyzed groups' coping strategies. Given the dramatically developing situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, support initiatives grounded in research evidence may be essential for maintaining the mental well-being and resilience of both the medical and non-medical workforce.
| S-EPMC8173082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent reports, including the Institute of Medicine's Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, highlight the pervasiveness and underappreciated harm of diagnostic error, and recommend enhancing health care professional education in diagnostic reasoning. However, little is known about clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools.ObjectiveTo describe clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools and to determine the attitudes of internal medicine clerkship directors toward teaching of clinical reasoning.DesignCross-sectional multicenter study.ParticipantsUS institutional members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM).Main measuresExamined responses to a survey that was emailed in May 2015 to CDIM institutional representatives, who reported on their medical school's clinical reasoning curriculum.Key resultsThe response rate was 74% (91/123). Most respondents reported that a structured curriculum in clinical reasoning should be taught in all phases of medical education, including the preclinical years (64/85; 75%), clinical clerkships (76/87; 87%), and the fourth year (75/88; 85%), and that more curricular time should be devoted to the topic. Respondents indicated that most students enter the clerkship with only poor (25/85; 29%) to fair (47/85; 55%) knowledge of key clinical reasoning concepts. Most institutions (52/91; 57%) surveyed lacked sessions dedicated to these topics. Lack of curricular time (59/67, 88%) and faculty expertise in teaching these concepts (53/76, 69%) were identified as barriers.ConclusionsInternal medicine clerkship directors believe that clinical reasoning should be taught throughout the 4 years of medical school, with the greatest emphasis in the clinical years. However, only a minority reported having teaching sessions devoted to clinical reasoning, citing a lack of curricular time and faculty expertise as the largest barriers. Our findings suggest that additional institutional and national resources should be dedicated to developing clinical reasoning curricula to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce diagnostic error.
| S-EPMC5653563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInappropriate prescription of intravenous fluid therapy is highly prevalent in hospitals, with up to 1 in 5 patients suffering from preventable, additional morbidity. Since trainee physicians are frequently responsible for prescribing intravenous fluids, it is possible that common medical student resources do not sufficiently cover the topic. There is a paucity of recent literature on this issue, which this study was designed to address.MethodsTwo original evaluation tools were created by the authors to evaluate reference books, official guidelines, and online reference sources commonly used by medical students in the United States of America, Australia, and the United Kingdom on their coverage of foundational and clinically relevant principles of intravenous fluid prescription. The choice of student resources was guided by a literature search and personal experience. A total of 10 resources was assessed.ResultsResources were generally deficit in their coverage of basic intravenous fluid topics. The total points each topic accumulated ranged from 0.5 (5%) to 7.5 (75%), with the median score being 4.5 (45%), on a scale from 0 to 10 points.ConclusionsPopular medical student resources poorly cover intravenous fluid therapy topics. This may be contributing to inadequate fluid prescribing practices.
| S-EPMC9195194 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7574202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical reasoning is the process of gathering and understanding information conducted by clinicians in the emergency medical services (EMS) so as to make informed decisions. Research on clinical reasoning spans several disciplines, but a comprehensive view of the process is lacking. To our knowledge, no review of clinical reasoning in the EMS has been conducted.AimThe aim was to investigate the nature, deployment, and factors influencing EMS clinicians' clinical reasoning by means of a review.MethodData was collected through searches in electronic databases, networking among research teams, colleagues and friends, "grey literature," and through ancestry searches. A total of 38 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion and were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis. The analysis resulted in an overarching finding - namely, the importance for EMS clinicians to adjust for perceived control in unpredictable situations. Within this finding, 3 themes emerged in terms of EMS clinicians' clinical reasoning: (1) maintaining a holistic view of the patient; (2) keeping an open mind; and (3) improving through criticism. Seven subthemes subsequently emerged from these three themes.ResultsThis review showed that EMS clinicians' clinical reasoning begins with the information that they are given about a patient. Based on this information, clinicians calculate the best route to the patient and which equipment to use, and they also assess potential risks. They need to be constantly aware of what is happening on the scene and with the patient and strive to control the situation. This striving also enables EMS clinicians to work safely and effectively in relation to the patient, their relatives, other clinicians, associated organizations, and the wider community. A lack of contextually appropriate guidelines results in the need for creativity and forces EMS clinicians to use "workarounds" to solve issues beyond the scope of the guidelines available. In addition, they often lack organizational support and fear repercussions such as litigation, unemployment, or blame by their EMS or healthcare organization or by patients and relatives.ConclusionClinical reasoning is influenced by several factors. Further research is needed to determine which influencing factors can be addressed through interventions to minimize their impact on patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6700770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical reasoning plays a major role in the ability of doctors to make a diagnosis and reach treatment decisions. This paper describes the use of four clinical reasoning tests in the second National Medical Science Olympiad in Iran: key features (KF), script concordance (SCT), clinical reasoning problems (CRP) and comprehensive integrative puzzles (CIP). The purpose of the study was to design a multi instrument for multiple roles approach in clinical reasoning field based on the theoretical framework, KF was used to measure data gathering, CRP was used to measure hypothesis formation, SCT and CIP were used to measure hypothesis evaluation and investigating the combined use of these tests in the Olympiad. A bank of clinical reasoning test items was developed for emergency medicine by a scientific expert committee representing all the medical schools in the country. These items were pretested by a reference group and the results were analyzed to select items that could be omitted. Then 135 top-ranked medical students from 45 medical universities in Iran participated in the clinical domain of the Olympiad. The reliability of each test was calculated by Cronbach's alpha. Item difficulty and the correlation between each item and the total score were measured. The correlation between the students' final grade and each of the clinical reasoning tests was calculated, as was the correlation between final grades and another measure of knowledge, i.e., the students' grade point average.ResultsThe combined reliability for all four clinical reasoning tests was 0.91. Of the four clinical reasoning tests we compared, reliability was highest for CIP (0.91). The reliability was 0.83 for KF, 0.78 for SCT and 0.71 for CRP. Most of the tests had an acceptable item difficulty level between 0.2 and 0.8. The correlation between the score for each item and the total test score for each of the four tests was positive. The correlations between scores for each test and total score were highest for KF and CIP. The correlation between scores for each test and grade point average was low to intermediate for all four of the tests.ConclusionThe combination of these four clinical reasoning tests is a reliable evaluation tool that can be implemented to assess clinical reasoning skills in talented undergraduate medical students, however these data may not generalizable to whole medical students population. The CIP and KF tests showed the greatest potential to measure clinical reasoning skills. Grade point averages did not necessarily predict performance in the clinical domain of the national competitive examination for medical school students.
| S-EPMC3215186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent international guidelines on dyslipidemia are not concordant on various aspects of management. Also, there are no uniformly accepted Indian guidelines. We, therefore, performed a physician survey to understand lipid management practices in India.MethodsAn anonymous survey questionnaire was administered to gauge physicians' self-reported behavior regarding lipid management aspects. Results were expressed in terms of percentages based on the number of responses obtained.ResultsA total of 404 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent respondents ordered a lipid profile before starting statin therapy, and 80% preferred to set lipid targets, though the tools used for calculating cardiovascular risk varied. Atorvastatin was preferred over rosuvastatin in primary prevention (72.9 vs. 32.4%), secondary prevention (54.6 vs. 46.7%), diabetic patients (56.3 vs. 40.3%) and post-ACS (78.3 vs. 34%). High-intensity statins were preferred by 73.7% of respondents in post-ACS cases. Fifty percent doctors chose not to use a statin in diabetic patients, irrespective of their LDL-C levels. The most preferred drug option for managing atherogenic dyslipidemia and moderate hypertriglyceridemia was statin-fibrate combination (55.1%) and fibrates (35.4%), respectively. Sixty-three percent doctors preferred to prescribe statins in patients with moderately high LDL-C and normal triglycerides, without CHD or CHD risk equivalents. Around 28% of doctors preferred not to use pharmacotherapy for managing isolated low HDL. Of the participants, 73% used fibrates in ?20% of their dyslipidemic patients, with fenofibrate being the most preferred (90.5%). Ezetimibe was mainly used in patients with uncontrolled LDL-C despite statin therapy (52.4% respondents). Most preferred approaches to manage statin intolerance included reducing statin dose (39%) and stopping and restarting statins at a lower dose (34.5%). Fifty-two percent of doctors chose not to alter pre-existing therapy in patients who had LDL-C levels at goal but elevated non-HDL-C levels.ConclusionThis is the first survey in India that provides useful insights into Indian physicians' self-reported perspectives on managing dyslipidemia in routine clinical practice. Despite concordance with the currently available guidelines in certain aspects, there is incongruence in managing specific dyslipidemia problems. Further continuing medical education and the development of evidence-based, India-specific lipid guidelines can help reduce some of these differences.
| S-EPMC5496264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdvocacy is a core component of medical professionalism. It is unclear how educators can best prepare trainees for this professional obligation. We sought to assess medical students' attitudes toward advocacy, including activities and issues of interest, and to determine congruence with professional obligations.MethodsA cross-sectional, web-based survey probed U.S. medical students' attitudes around 7 medical issues (e.g. nutrition/obesity, addiction) and 11 determinants of health (e.g. housing, transportation). Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and regression analysis investigated associations with demographic characteristics.ResultsOf 240 students completing the survey, 53% were female; most were white (62%) or Asian (28%). Most agreed it is very important that physicians encourage medical organizations to advocate for public health (76%) and provide health-related expertise to the community (57%). More participants rated advocacy for medical issues as very important, compared to issues with indirect connections to health (p < 0.001). Generally, liberals and non-whites were likelier than others to value advocacy.ConclusionsMedical students reported strong interest in advocacy, particularly around health issues, consistent with professional standards. Many attitudes were associated with political affiliation and race. To optimize future physician advocacy, educators should provide opportunities for learning and engagement in issues of interest.
| S-EPMC8310411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDeveloping medical students' clinical reasoning requires a structured longitudinal curriculum with frequent targeted assessment and feedback. Performance-based assessments, which have the strongest validity evidence, are currently not feasible for this purpose because they are time-intensive to score. This study explored the potential of using machine learning technologies to score one such assessment-the diagnostic justification essay.MethodFrom May to September 2018, machine scoring algorithms were trained to score a sample of 700 diagnostic justification essays written by 414 third-year medical students from the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine classes of 2012-2017. The algorithms applied semantically based natural language processing metrics (e.g., coherence, readability) to assess essay quality on 4 criteria (differential diagnosis, recognition and use of findings, workup, and thought process); the scores for these criteria were summed to create overall scores. Three sources of validity evidence (response process, internal structure, and association with other variables) were examined.ResultsMachine scores correlated more strongly with faculty ratings than faculty ratings did with each other (machine: .28-.53, faculty: .13-.33) and were less case-specific. Machine scores and faculty ratings were similarly correlated with medical knowledge, clinical cognition, and prior diagnostic justification. Machine scores were more strongly associated with clinical communication than were faculty ratings (.43 vs .31).ConclusionsMachine learning technologies may be useful for assessing medical students' long-form written clinical reasoning. Semantically based machine scoring may capture the communicative aspects of clinical reasoning better than faculty ratings, offering the potential for automated assessment that generalizes to the workplace. These results underscore the potential of machine scoring to capture an aspect of clinical reasoning performance that is difficult to assess with traditional analytic scoring methods. Additional research should investigate machine scoring generalizability and examine its acceptability to trainees and educators.
| S-EPMC8243833 | biostudies-literature