ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2017
What physicians reason about during admission case review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Support of Meaningful Assessment and Feedback: A Study of Clinical Reasoning Tasks Used in Ambulatory Case Reviews.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Physicians have feelings: illuminating the relationship between emotional valence, clinical reasoning and context specificity.Medical education online · 2024Article
- Machine learning approaches toward an understanding of acute kidney injury: current trends and future directions.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2023Article
- Development of the clinical reasoning competency scale for nurses.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes Demonstrated by Pharmacy Students When Making Therapeutic Decisions.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2023Article
- Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? A systematic integrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Management reasoning scripts: Qualitative exploration using simulated physician-patient encounters.Perspectives on medical education · 2022Article
- The importance of theory and method: A brief reflection on an innovative program of research examining how situational factors influence physicians' clinical reasoning.FASEB bioAdvances · 2021Article
- Empirical comparison of three assessment instruments of clinical reasoning capability in 230 medical students.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Convergent Validity of a Novel Clinical Reasoning Tool in Clerkship Medical Students: Pilot Study.Medical science educator · 2020Article
- Effects of live and video simulation on clinical reasoning performance and reflection.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2020Article
- First-year medical students' calibration bias and accuracy across clinical reasoning activities.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2019Article
- Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2019Article
- Clinical Reasoning in the Primary Care Setting: Two Scenario-Based Simulations for Residents and Attendings.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.