Dataset Information

Clinical Reasoning Terms Included in Clinical Problem Solving Exercises?

ABSTRACT: Background?Published clinical problem solving exercises have emerged as a common tool to illustrate aspects of the clinical reasoning process. The specific clinical reasoning terms mentioned in such exercises is unknown. Objective?We identified which clinical reasoning terms are mentioned in published clinical problem solving exercises and compared them to clinical reasoning terms given high priority by clinician educators. Methods?A convenience sample of clinician educators prioritized a list of clinical reasoning terms (whether to include, weight percentage of top 20 terms). The authors then electronically searched the terms in the text of published reports of 4 internal medicine journals between January 2010 and May 2013. Results?The top 5 clinical reasoning terms ranked by educators were dual-process thinking (weight percentage?=?24%), problem representation (12%), illness scripts (9%), hypothesis generation (7%), and problem categorization (7%). The top clinical reasoning terms mentioned in the text of 79 published reports were context specificity (n?=?20, 25%), bias (n?=?13, 17%), dual-process thinking (n?=?11, 14%), illness scripts (n?=?11, 14%), and problem representation (n?=?10, 13%). Context specificity and bias were not ranked highly by educators. Conclusions?Some core concepts of modern clinical reasoning theory ranked highly by educators are mentioned explicitly in published clinical problem solving exercises. However, some highly ranked terms were not used, and some terms used were not ranked by the clinician educators. Effort to teach clinical reasoning to trainees may benefit from a common nomenclature of clinical reasoning terms.

SUBMITTER: Musgrove JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4857501 | biostudies-other | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Reasoning Terms Included in Clinical Problem Solving Exercises?

Musgrove John L JL Morris Jason J Estrada Carlos A CA Kraemer Ryan R RR

Journal of graduate medical education 20160501 2

Background Published clinical problem solving exercises have emerged as a common tool to illustrate aspects of the clinical reasoning process. The specific clinical reasoning terms mentioned in such exercises is unknown. Objective We identified which clinical reasoning terms are mentioned in published clinical problem solving exercises and compared them to clinical reasoning terms given high priority by clinician educators. Methods A convenience sample of clinician educators prioritized a list o ...[more]

PMID: 27168884

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this paper we argue that a synthesis of findings across the various sub-areas of research in complex problem solving and consequently progress in theory building is hampered by an insufficient differentiation of complexity and difficulty. In the proposed framework of person, task, and situation (PTS), complexity is conceptualized as a quality that is determined by the cognitive demands that the characteristics of the task and the situation impose. Difficulty represents the quantifiable level of a person's success in dealing with such demands. We use the well-documented "semantic effect" as an exemplar for testing some of the conceptual assumptions derived from the PTS framework. We demonstrate how a differentiation between complexity and difficulty can help take beyond a potentially too narrowly defined psychometric perspective and subsequently gain a better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms behind this effect. In an empirical study a total of 240 university students were randomly allocated to one of four conditions. The four conditions resulted from contrasting the semanticity level of the variable labels used in the CPS system (high vs. low) and two instruction conditions for how to explore the CPS system's causal structure (starting with the assumption that all relationships between variables existed vs. starting with the assumption that none of the relationships existed). The variation in the instruction aimed at inducing knowledge acquisition processes of either (1) systematic elimination of presumptions, or (2) systematic compilation of a mental representation of the causal structure underpinning the system. Results indicate that (a) it is more complex to adopt a "blank slate" perspective under high semanticity as it requires processes of inhibiting prior assumptions, and (b) it seems more difficult to employ a systematic heuristic when testing against presumptions. In combination, situational characteristics, such as the semanticity of variable labels, have the potential to trigger qualitatively different tasks. Failing to differentiate between 'task' and 'situation' as independent sources of complexity and treating complexity and difficulty synonymously threaten the validity of performance scores obtained in CPS research.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Family caregivers of hospice patients have multiple needs as they try to cope during a stressful time. Translatable interventions effective in improving caregiver outcomes are greatly needed. Our objective was to assess the impact of a problem-solving intervention (called Problem-Solving Intervention to Support Caregivers in End-of-Life Care Settings [PISCES]) to support hospice caregivers on caregiver quality of life and anxiety, and compare its effectiveness delivered face to face and via videoconferencing. DESIGN:In this 4-year randomized clinical trial, caregivers were randomly assigned to a group receiving standard care with added "friendly calls" (attention control [AC] group), a group receiving standard care and PISCES delivered face to face (F2F), or a group receiving standard care and PISCES delivered via videoconferencing (VC). SETTING:Home hospice. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 514 caregivers participated (172 in AC, 171 in F2F, and 171 in VC). Caregivers were predominantly female (75%); mean age was 60.3 years. INTERVENTION:PISCES includes a structured curriculum delivered in three sessions and motivates caregivers to adopt a positive attitude, define problems by obtaining facts, set goals, and generate and evaluate solutions. MEASUREMENTS:Quality of life was measured by the Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Revised; anxiety was measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item. Other measures included the Caregiver Reaction Assessment scale, demographic data, and an exit interview. RESULTS:Compared with AC, caregivers in the F2F condition had postintervention reduced anxiety (-1.31 [95% confidence interval [CI]?=?-2.11 to .50]; p?=?.004) and improved social (.57 [95% CI?=?.19-.95]; p?=?.01), financial (.57 [95% CI?=?.21-.93]; p?=?.004), and physical quality of life (.53 [95% CI?=?.19-.87]; p?=?.01). There were no differences in caregivers in the VC condition compared with the AC condition. CONCLUSION:The PISCES intervention improves caregiver outcomes and is effective when delivered in person. How to integrate technology to reduce the intervention delivery cost warrants further investigation.

Dataset Information

Clinical Reasoning Terms Included in Clinical Problem Solving Exercises?

Publications

Clinical Reasoning Terms Included in Clinical Problem Solving Exercises?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets