Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31773062›Full record

ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2019

Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings.

Megan Ohmer, Steven J Durning, Walter Kucera, Matthew Nealeigh, Sarah Ordway, Thomas Mellor, Jeffery Mikita, Anna Howle, Sarah Krajnik, Abigail Konopasky and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Megan OhmerResearch Assistant, Department of Medicine, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
Steven J DurningProfessor, Department of Medicine and Pathology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
Walter KuceraResident, Department of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
Matthew NealeighResident, Department of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
Sarah OrdwayFellow, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
Thomas MellorFellow, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Naval Medical Center San Diego.
Jeffery MikitaChief, Department of Simulation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
Anna HowleSimulation Educator, Department of Simulation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
Sarah KrajnikSimulation Educator, Department of Simulation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
Abigail KonopaskyAssistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
Divya RamaniResearch Assistant, Department of Medicine, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
Alexis BattistaAssistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There is a need for educational resources supporting the practice and assessment of the complex processes of clinical reasoning in the inpatient setting along a continuum of physician experience levels. Methods: Using participatory design, we created a scenario-based simulation integrating diagnostic ambiguity, contextual factors, and rising patient acuity to increase complexity. Resources include an open-ended written exercise and think-aloud reflection protocol to elicit diagnostic and management reasoning and reflection on that reasoning. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the initial implementation evaluation results. Results: Twenty physicians from multiple training stages and specialties (interns, residents, attendings, family physicians, internists, surgeons) underwent the simulated scenario. Participants engaged in clinical reasoning processes consistent with the design, considering a total of 19 differential diagnoses. Ten participants provided the correct leading diagnosis, tension pneumothorax, with an additional eight providing pneumothorax and all participants offering relevant supporting evidence. There was also good evidence of management reasoning, with all participants either performing an intervention or calling for assistance and reflecting on management plans in the think-aloud. The scenario was a reasonable approximation of clinical practice, with a mean authenticity rating of 4.15 out of 5. Finally, the scenario presented adequate challenge, with interns and residents rating it as only slightly more challenging (means of 7.83 and 7.17, respectively) than attendings (mean of 6.63 out of 10). Discussion: Despite the challenges of scenario complexity, evaluation results indicate that this resource supports the observation and analysis of diagnostic and management reasoning of diverse specialties from interns through attendings.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCritical CareDelivery of Health CareEducation, MedicalEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHospital Rapid Response TeamHumansInpatientsMaleMental ProcessesPatient Care PlanningPatients' RoomsPhysiciansPneumothoraxClinical ReasoningCritical Care MedicineMedical/Surgical WardQualitative ResearchQuantitative ResearchRapid ResponseScenario-Based SimulationSimulationStandardized PatientSurgeryTension PneumothoraxThink-Aloud

Identifiers

PMID31773062
PMCPMC6869982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.