Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27469243›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2017

What physicians reason about during admission case review.

Salina Juma, Mark Goldszmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. First-year medical students' calibration bias and accuracy across clinical reasoning activities.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2019
    Article
  14. Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Salina JumaDivision of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Mark GoldszmidtDivision of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. mark.goldszmidt@schulich.uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5861-5222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research suggests that physicians perform multiple reasoning tasks beyond diagnosis during patient review. However, these remain largely theoretical. The purpose of this study was to explore reasoning tasks in clinical practice during patient admission review. The authors used a constant comparative approach-an iterative and inductive process of coding and recoding-to analyze transcripts from 38 audio-recorded case reviews between junior trainees and their senior residents or attendings. Using a previous list of reasoning tasks, analysis focused on what tasks were performed, when they occurred, and how they related to the other tasks. All 24 tasks were observed in at least one review with a mean of 17.9 (Min = 15, Max = 22) distinct tasks per review. Two new tasks-assess illness severity and patient decision-making capacity-were identified, thus 26 tasks were examined. Three overarching tasks were identified-assess priorities, determine and refine the most likely diagnosis and establish and refine management plans-that occurred throughout all stages of the case review starting from patient identification and continuing through to assessment and plan. A fourth possible overarching task-reflection-was also identified but only observed in four instances across three cases. The other 22 tasks appeared to be context dependent serving to support, expand, and refine one or more overarching tasks. Tasks were non-sequential and the same supporting task could serve more than one overarching task. The authors conclude that these findings provide insight into the 'what' and 'when' of physician reasoning during case review that can be used to support professional development, clinical training and patient care. In particular, they draw attention to the iterative way in which each task is addressed during a case review and how this finding may challenge conventional ways of teaching and assessing clinical communication and reasoning. They also suggest that further research is needed to explore how physicians decide why a supporting task is required in a particular context.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingEducation, Medical, GraduateInternship and ResidencyThinkingClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansInternal MedicineMalePhysiciansCase reviewClinical reasoningClinical supervisionClinical trainingReasoning tasks

Identifiers

PMID27469243
PMCPMC5498615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.