René A Tio1, Marco A Carvalho Filho2, Marcos F de Menezes Mota3, André Santanchè4, Sílvia Mamede5. 1. is a Cardiologist, Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Netherlands, and Medical Education Researcher, Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, University of Maastricht, Netherlands. 2. is a Medical Education Researcher, Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, and Lifelong Learning, Education & Assessment Research Network (LEARN), University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 3. is a Computer Scientist and PhD Candidate, Institute of Computing, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. is a Computer Scientist, Institute of Computing, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. is a Medical Education Researcher, Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, and Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: Physicians may receive diagnostic information in different orders, and there is a lack of empirical evidence that the order of presentation may influence clinical reasoning. Objective: We investigated whether diagnostic accuracy of chest pain cases is influenced by the order of presentation of the history and electrocardiogram (EKG) to cardiology residents. Methods: We conducted an experimental study during a resident training in 2019. Twelve clinical cases were presented in 2 diagnostic rounds. Residents were randomly allocated to seeing the EKG first (EKGF) or the history first (HF). The mean diagnostic accuracy scores (range 0-1) and confidence level (0-100) in each diagnostic round and time needed to make the diagnosis were evaluated. Results: The final diagnostic accuracy was higher than the initial in both groups. After the first round, diagnostic accuracy was higher in HF (n=24) than in EKGF (n=28). Time taken to judge the history was comparable in both groups. Time taken to judge the EKG was shorter in HF (40±11 vs 64±13 seconds; P<.01). Time invested in the second round was significantly correlated with changing the initial diagnosis. A significant difference was observed in confidence ratings after the initial diagnosis, with EKGF reporting less confidence relative to HF. Conclusions: The order in which history and EKG are presented influences the clinical reasoning process.
Background: Physicians may receive diagnostic information in different orders, and there is a lack of empirical evidence that the order of presentation may influence clinical reasoning. Objective: We investigated whether diagnostic accuracy of chest pain cases is influenced by the order of presentation of the history and electrocardiogram (EKG) to cardiology residents. Methods: We conducted an experimental study during a resident training in 2019. Twelve clinical cases were presented in 2 diagnostic rounds. Residents were randomly allocated to seeing the EKG first (EKGF) or the history first (HF). The mean diagnostic accuracy scores (range 0-1) and confidence level (0-100) in each diagnostic round and time needed to make the diagnosis were evaluated. Results: The final diagnostic accuracy was higher than the initial in both groups. After the first round, diagnostic accuracy was higher in HF (n=24) than in EKGF (n=28). Time taken to judge the history was comparable in both groups. Time taken to judge the EKG was shorter in HF (40±11 vs 64±13 seconds; P<.01). Time invested in the second round was significantly correlated with changing the initial diagnosis. A significant difference was observed in confidence ratings after the initial diagnosis, with EKGF reporting less confidence relative to HF. Conclusions: The order in which history and EKG are presented influences the clinical reasoning process.
Authors: Sandra D Monteiro; Jonathan Sherbino; Ameen Patel; Ian Mazzetti; Geoffrey R Norman; Elizabeth Howey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew Sibbald; Anique B H De Bruin; Jeroen J G van Merrienboer Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Olga Kostopoulou; J Edward Russo; Greg Keenan; Brendan C Delaney; Abdel Douiri Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Henk G Schmidt; Sílvia Mamede; Kees van den Berge; Tamara van Gog; Jan L C M van Saase; Remy M J P Rikers Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Dalal A ALQahtani; Jerome I Rotgans; Silvia Mamede; Ibrahim ALAlwan; Mohi Eldin M Magzoub; Fatheya M Altayeb; Manahil A Mohamedani; Henk G Schmidt Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 6.893