Literature DB >> 12191059

Promoting diagnostic problem representation.

Mathieu R Nendaz1, Georges Bordage.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Problem representation, as mediated by semantic qualifiers (SQs), has been associated with better diagnostic outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of training medical students to use semantic abstractions as a means of building problem representations.
METHODS: Sixty second-year medical students were assigned to either an intervention group (n = 20) or a control group (n = 40) during 8 months of an Essentials in Clinical Medicine course which used standardized patient-based workshops. Students were trained to transform findings into SQs and to use abstractions to compare and contrast diagnostic hypotheses. Students were assessed using a standardized patient data collection checklist, a post-encounter patient finding questionnaire (PFQ), and case summaries and write-ups.
RESULTS: Experimental subjects used over twice as many SQs in their summaries as control group members (1.40 versus 0.63, P = 0.006). The correlation between checklist and PFQ scores was higher for the experimental group than for the control group (r = 0.70 versus r = 0.58, P </= 0.001). There was no difference between groups in either the number of SQs used in write-ups nor in diagnostic accuracy (P > 0.56).
CONCLUSION: A short instructional intervention was successful in promoting the use of SQs and enabled students to recall elicited findings better. This intervention did not enhance data interpretation and diagnostic accuracy. Use of SQs may therefore be a necessary tool for efficient problem representation but one that is insufficient when used in isolation. The naturalistic setting used in this study imposed a number of limitations, implying that further research should test whether instructional efforts should also emphasize recognition of key patient findings and knowledge representation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12191059     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01279.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  14 in total

1.  Exhausting the differential.

Authors:  Joseph Chiovaro; Vanja Douglas; Anuj Gaggar; Gurpreet Dhaliwal
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Now You See It, Now You Don't: What Thinking Aloud Tells Us About Clinical Reasoning.

Authors:  Judith L Bowen; Jonathan S Ilgen
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2014-12

3.  Clinical Reasoning Terms Included in Clinical Problem Solving Exercises?

Authors:  John L Musgrove; Jason Morris; Carlos A Estrada; Ryan R Kraemer
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2016-05

4.  Clinical Reasoning: Talk the Talk or Just Walk the Walk?

Authors:  Gurpreet Dhaliwal; Jonathan Ilgen
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2016-05

5.  The Importance of Framing.

Authors:  Stephen Stuart; J R Hartig; Lisa Willett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Exploring and validating patient concerns: relation to prescribing for depression.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Cleveland G Shields; Peter Franks; Sean C Meldrum; Mitchell Feldman; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 7.  Cognitive expertise, emotional development, and reflective capacity: clinical skills for improved pain care.

Authors:  Beth B Murinson; Aakash K Agarwal; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.820

8.  Students' educational needs for clinical reasoning in first clerkships.

Authors:  Thijs T Wingelaar; Judith M Wagter; Alf E R Arnold
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2012-04-04

9.  Problem formulation by medical students: an observation study.

Authors:  Francois Auclair
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2007-06-17       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  Analysing clinical reasoning characteristics using a combined methods approach.

Authors:  Michele Groves; Marie-Louise Dick; Geoff McColl; Justin Bilszta
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.