Band 6, Heft 2 - Special Issue: Health Professions Education Special Issue / Issue Editors: Gurpreet Dhaliwal, Andrew Olson, Geeta Singhal

Morning report is a valuable educational conference but is often a stand-alone classroom-based discussion which misses the opportunity for bedside education. In this report, we describe an innovative morning report structure – the Case Oriented Report and Exam Skills (CORES) – that addresses this pitfall of the traditional case conference format and brings learners to the bedside. The key components of CORES include highlighting concepts of clinical reasoning, emphasizing evidence-based and hypothesis-driven physical exam (HDPE), and integrating emerging bedside technologies such as point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS).

Background Diagnostic reasoning is an important topic in medical education, and diagnostic errors are increasingly recognized as large contributors to patient morbidity and mortality. One way to improve learner understanding of the diagnostic process is to teach the concepts of Bayesian reasoning and to make these concepts practical for clinical use. Many clinician educators do not fully understand Bayesian concepts and they lack the tools to incorporate Bayesian reasoning into clinical practice and teaching. Methods The authors developed an interactive workshop using visual models of probabilities and thresholds, clinical cases, and available smartphone apps to teach learners about Bayesian concepts. Results Evaluations from 3 years of workshops at a national internal medicine chief resident conference showed high satisfaction, with narrative comments suggesting learners found the visual and smartphone tools useful for applying the concepts with future learners. Conclusions Visual models, clinical cases, and smartphone apps were well received by chief residents as a way to learn and teach Bayesian reasoning. Further study will be needed to understand if these tools can improve diagnostic accuracy or patient outcomes.

Background Cognitive biases may negatively impact clinical decision-making. The dynamic nature of a simulation environment can facilitate heuristic decision-making which can serve as a teaching opportunity. Methods Momentum bias, confirmation bias, playing-the-odds bias, and order-effect bias were integrated into four simulation scenarios. Clinical simulation educators and human factors specialists designed a script of events during scenarios to trigger heuristic decision-making. Debriefing included the exploration of frames (mental models) resulting in the observed actions, as well as a discussion of specific bias-prone frames and bias-resistant frames. Simulation sessions and debriefings were coded to measure the occurrence of bias, recovery from biased decision-making, and effectiveness of debriefings. Results Twenty medical residents and 18 medical students participated in the study. Twenty pairs (of one medical student and one resident) and two individuals (medical residents alone) completed a simulation session. Evidence of bias was observed in 11 of 20 (55%) sessions. While most participant pairs were able to avoid or recover from the anticipated bias, there were three sessions with no recovery. Evaluation of debriefings showed exploration of frames in all the participant pairs. Establishing new bias-resistant frames occurred more often when the learners experienced the bias. Conclusions Instructional design using experiential learning can focus learner attention on the specific elements of diagnostic decision-making. Using scenario design and debriefing enabled trainees to experience and analyze their own cognitive biases.

Background Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare calls for improved training in diagnostic reasoning and establishing non-judgmental forums to learn from diagnostic errors arising from heuristic-driven reasoning. Little is known about pediatric providers’ familiarity with heuristics or the culture surrounding forums where diagnostic errors are discussed. This study aimed to describe pediatric providers’ familiarity with common heuristics and perceptions surrounding public discussions of diagnostic errors. Methods We surveyed pediatric providers at a university-affiliated children’s hospital. The survey asked participants to identify common heuristics used during clinical reasoning (five definitions; four exemplar clinical vignettes). Participants answered questions regarding comfort publicly discussing their own diagnostic errors and barriers to sharing them. Results Seventy (30.6% response rate) faculty completed the survey. The mean number of correctly selected heuristics was 1.60/5 [standard deviation (SD)=1.13] and 1.01/4 (SD=1.06) for the definitions and vignettes, respectively. A low but significant correlation existed between correctly identifying a definition and selecting the correct heuristic in vignettes (Spearman’s ρ=0.27, p=0.02). Clinicians were significantly less likely to be “pretty” or “very” comfortable discussing diagnostic errors in public vs. private conversations (28.3% vs. 74.3%, p<0.01). The most frequently cited barriers to discussing errors were loss of reputation (62.9%) and fear of knowledge-base (58.6%) or decision-making (57.1%) being judged. Conclusions Pediatric providers demonstrated limited familiarity with common heuristics leading to diagnostic error. Greater years in practice is associated with more comfort discussing diagnostic errors, but negative peer and personal perceptions of diagnostic performance are common barriers to discussing errors publicly.

Background Clinical reasoning (CR) is a core competency in medical education. Few studies have examined efforts to train faculty to teach CR and lead CR curricula in medical schools and residencies. In this report, we describe the development and preliminary evaluation of a faculty development workshop to teach CR grounded in CR theory. Methods Twenty-six medicine faculty (nine hospitalists and 17 subspecialists) participated in a workshop that introduced a framework to teach CR using an interactive, case-based didactic followed by role-play exercises. Faculty participated in pre- and post-Group Observed Structured Teaching Exercises (GOSTE), completed retrospective pre-post assessments (RPPs), and made commitment to change statements (CTCs). Results In the post-GOSTE, participants significantly improved in their use of problem representation and illness scripts to teach CR. RPPs revealed that faculty were more confident in their ability and more likely to teach CR using educational strategies grounded in CR educational theory. At 2-month follow-up, 81% of participants reported partially implementing these teaching techniques. Conclusions After participating in this 3-h workshop, faculty demonstrated increased ability to use these teaching techniques and expressed greater confidence and an increased likelihood to teach CR. The majority of faculty reported implementing these newly learned educational strategies into practice.

Background Errors in medicine are common and often tied to diagnosis. Educating physicians about the science of cognitive decision-making, especially during medical school and residency when trainees are still forming clinical habits, may enhance awareness of individual cognitive biases and has the potential to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient safety. Methods The authors aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a clinical reasoning curriculum for Internal Medicine residents. The authors developed and delivered a clinical reasoning curriculum to 47 PGY2 residents in an Internal Medicine Residency Program at a large urban hospital. The clinical reasoning curriculum consists of six to seven sessions with the specific aims of: (1) educating residents on cognitive steps and reasoning strategies used in clinical reasoning; (2) acknowledging the pitfalls of clinical reasoning and learning how cognitive biases can lead to clinical errors; (3) expanding differential diagnostic ability and developing illness scripts that incorporate discrete clinical prediction rules; and (4) providing opportunities for residents to reflect on their own clinical reasoning (also known as metacognition). Results Forty-seven PGY2 residents participated in the curriculum (2013–2016). Self-assessed comfort in recognizing and applying clinical reasoning skills increased in 15 of 15 domains (p < 0.05 for each). Resident mean scores on the knowledge assessment improved from 58% pre-curriculum to 81% post curriculum (p = 0.002). Conclusions A case vignette-based clinical reasoning curriculum can effectively increase residents’ knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and improve residents’ self-assessed comfort in recognizing and applying clinical reasoning skills.

Diagnostic uncertainty is common in clinical practice and affects both providers and patients on a daily basis. Yet, a unifying model describing uncertainty and identifying the best practices for how to teach about and discuss this issue with trainees and patients is lacking. In this paper, we explore the intersection of uncertainty and expertise. We propose a 2 × 2 model of diagnostic accuracy and certainty that can be used in discussions with trainees, outline an approach to communicating diagnostic uncertainty with patients, and advocate for teaching trainees how to hold such conversations with patients.

Background A framework of clinical reasoning tasks used by physicians during clinical encounters was previously developed proposing that clinical reasoning is a complex process composed of 26 possible tasks. The aim of this paper was to analyze the verbalized clinical reasoning processes of medical students utilizing commonly encountered internal medicine cases. Methods In this mixed-methods study, participants viewed three video recorded clinical encounters. After each encounter, participants completed a think-aloud protocol. The qualitative data from the transcribed think-aloud transcripts were analyzed by two investigators using a constant comparative approach. The type, frequency, and pattern of codes used were analyzed. Results Seventeen third and fourth year medical students participated. They used 15 reasoning tasks across all cases. The average number of tasks used in cases 1, 2, and 3 was (respectively) 5.6 (range 3–8), 5.9 (range 4–8), and 5.3 (range 3–10). The order in which medical students verbalized reasoning tasks varied and appeared purposeful but non-sequential. Conclusions Consistent with prior research in residents, participants progressed through the encounter in a purposeful but non-sequential fashion. Reasoning tasks related to framing the encounter and diagnosis were not used in succession but interchangeably. This suggests that teaching successful clinical reasoning may involve encouraging or demonstrating multiple pathways through a problem. Further research exploring the association between use of clinical reasoning tasks and clinical reasoning accuracy could enhance the medical community’s understanding of variance in clinical reasoning.

Background Understanding clinical reasoning is a major challenge in medical education research. Little is known about the influence of scaffolding and feedback on the clinical reasoning of medical students. The aim of this study was to measure the effects of problem representation (cognitive representation of a clinical case) and structured scaffolding for reflection with or without feedback on the diagnostic efficiency and characterization of diagnostic errors of medical students. Methods One hundred and forty-eight advanced medical students were randomly assigned to one of five groups (2 × 2 design with a control group). They worked on 15 virtual clinical cases (five learning cases, five initial assessment cases, and five delayed assessment cases) in an electronic learning environment. After each case, they stated their presumed diagnosis and explained their diagnostic conclusion. Diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and error distribution were analyzed. Results The diagnostic accuracy (number of correctly solved cases) and efficiency (solved cases/total time) did not differ significantly between any of the groups in the two different assessment phases [mean = 2.2–3.3 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.79–1.31), p = 0.08/0.27 and mean = 0.07–0.12 (SD = 0.04–0.08), p = 0.16/0.32, respectively]. The most important causes for diagnostic errors were a lack of diagnostic skills (20%), a lack of knowledge (18%), and premature closure (17%). Conclusions Neither structured reflections nor representation scaffolding improved diagnostic accuracy or efficiency of medical students compared to a control group when working with virtual patients.

Background Avoiding or correcting a diagnostic error first requires identification of an error and perhaps deciding to revise a diagnosis, but little is known about the factors that lead to revision. Three aspects of reflective practice, seeking Alternative explanations, exploring the Consequences of missing these alternative diagnoses, identifying Traits that may contradict the provisional diagnosis, were incorporated into a three-point diagnostic checklist (abbreviated to ACT). Methods Seventeen first and second year emergency medicine residents from the University of Toronto participated. Participants read up to eight case vignettes and completed the ACT diagnostic checklist. Provisional and final diagnoses and all responses for alternatives, consequences, and traits were individually scored as correct or incorrect. Additionally, each consequence was scored on a severity scale from 0 (not severe) to 3 (very severe). Average scores for alternatives, consequences, and traits and the severity rating for each consequence were entered into a binary logistic regression analysis with the outcome of revised or retained provisional diagnosis. Results Only 13% of diagnoses were revised. The binary logistic regression revealed that three scores derived from the ACT tool responses were associated with the decision to revise: severity rating of the consequence for missing the provisional diagnosis, the percent correct for identifying consequences, and the percent correct for identifying traits (χ 2  = 23.5, df = 6, p < 0.001). The other three factors were not significant predictors. Conclusions Decisions to revise diagnoses may be cued by the detection of contradictory evidence. Education interventions may be more effective at reducing diagnostic error by targeting the ability to detect contradictory information within patient cases.

Background Scant data exists to guide the work-up for fever in hospitalized patients, and little is known about what diagnostic tests medicine residents order for such patients. We sought to analyze how cross-covering medicine residents address fever and how sign-out systems affect their response. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate febrile episodes that residents responded to overnight. Primary outcomes included diagnostic tests ordered, if an in-person evaluation occurred, and the effect of sign-out instructions that advised a “full fever work-up” (FFWU). Results Investigators reviewed 253 fevers in 155 patients; sign-out instructions were available for 204 fevers. Residents evaluated the patient in person in 29 (11%) episodes. The most common tests ordered were: blood cultures (48%), urinalysis (UA) with reflex culture (34%), and chest X-ray (30%). If the sign-out advised an FFWU, residents were more likely to order blood cultures [odds ratio (OR) 14.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.52–28.90], UA with reflex culture (OR 12.07, 95% CI 5.56–23.23), chest X-ray (OR 16.55, 95% CI 7.03–39.94), lactate (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.47–7.55), and complete blood count (CBC) (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.17–8.51). In a multivariable regression, predictors of the number of tests ordered included hospital location, resident training level, timing of previous blood culture, in-person evaluation, escalation to a higher level of care, and sign-out instructions. Conclusions Sign-out instructions and a few patient factors significantly impacted cross-cover resident diagnostic test ordering for overnight fevers. This practice can be targeted in resident education to improve diagnostic reasoning and stewardship.

Background The National Academies of Sciences report Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare highlighted the need for better training in medical decision-making, but most medical schools lack formal education in clinical reasoning. Methods We conducted a pseudo-randomized and controlled study to evaluate the impact of a clinical reasoning curriculum in an internal medicine clerkship. Students in the intervention group completed six interactive online modules focused on reasoning concepts and a skills-based workshop. We assessed the impact of the curriculum on clinical reasoning knowledge and skills and perception of education by evaluating: (1) performance on a clinical reasoning concept quiz, (2) demonstration of reasoning in hospital admission notes, and (3) awareness of attending physician utilization of clinical reasoning concepts. Results Students in the intervention group demonstrated superior performance on the clinical reasoning knowledge quiz (67% vs. 54%, p < 0.001). Students in the intervention group demonstrated superior written reasoning skills in the data synthesis (2.3 vs. 2.0, p = 0.02) and diagnostic reasoning (2.2 vs. 1.9, p = 0.02) portions of their admission notes, and reported more discussion of clinical reasoning by their attending physicians. Conclusions Exposure to a clinical reasoning curriculum was associated with superior reasoning knowledge and superior written demonstration of clinical reasoning skills by third-year medical students on an internal medicine clerkship.

Background Diagnostic errors in emergency medicine (EM) can lead to patient harm as well as potential malpractice claims and quality assurance (QA) reviews. It is therefore essential that these topics are part of the core education of trainees. The methods training programs use to educate residents on these topics are unknown. The goal of this study was to identify the current methods used to teach EM residents about diagnostic errors, QA, and malpractice/risk management and determine the amount of educational teaching time EM programs dedicate to these topics. Methods An 11-item questionnaire pertaining to resident education on diagnostic errors, QA, and malpractice was sent through the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) listserv. Differences in the proportions of responses by duration of training program were analyzed using chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests. Results Fifty-four percent (91/168) of the EM programs responded. There was no difference in prevalence of formal education on these topics among 3- and 4-year programs. The majority of programs (59.5%) offer fewer than 4 h per year of additional QA education beyond morbidity and mortality rounds; a minority of the programs (18.8%) offer more than 4 h per year of medical malpractice/risk management education. Conclusions This needs assessment demonstrated that there is a lack of dedicated educational time devoted to these topics. A more formalized and standard curricular approach with increased time allotment may enhance EM resident education about diagnostic errors, QA, and malpractice/risk management.

Background Diagnostic waste, defined as the ordering of low value tests, increases cost, causes delays, increases complexity, and reduces reliability. The Toyota Production System (TPS) is a powerful approach for process improvement that has not been applied to the diagnostic process. We describe a curriculum based on tools and principles of TPS that provides medical students with an approach for reducing diagnostic waste and improving patient management. Methods A 2-day elective course “Fixing Healthcare Delivery” was offered to medical students at the University of Florida, Gainesville. A section within the course had three learning objectives related to TPS: (1) define value in health care; (2) describe how diagnostic waste leads to time delays and diagnostic errors; and (3) apply sequential and iterative value streams for patient management. Instruction methods included videos, readings, and online quizzes followed by a 2-h seminar with facilitated discussion and active problem solving. Results During the 3 years the course was offered students (n = 25) achieved average scores of 95% on a pre-seminar test of manufacturing principles applied to the diagnostic and management process. Course evaluations averaged 4.94 out of 5 (n = 31). Conclusions Students appreciated the application of the TPS principles to the diagnostic process and expressed the desire to apply these manufacturing principles in their future diagnostic and management decision-making.