Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training?

Abstract Background Using malpractice claims cases as vignettes is a promising approach for improving clinical reasoning education (CRE), as malpractice claims can provide a variety of content- and context-rich examples. However, the effect on learning of adding information about a malpractice claim, which may evoke a deeper emotional response, is not yet clear. This study examined whether knowing that a diagnostic error resulted in a malpractice claim affects diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis of future cases. Moreover, suitability of using erroneous cases with and without a malpractice claim for CRE, as judged by participants, was evaluated. Methods In the first session of this two-phased, within-subjects experiment, 81 first-year residents of general practice (GP) were exposed to both erroneous cases with (M) and erroneous cases without (NM) malpractice claim information, derived from a malpractice claims database. Participants rated suitability of the cases for CRE on a five-point Likert scale. In the second session, one week later, participants solved four different cases with the same diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with three questions, scored on a 0–1 scale: (1) What is your next step? (2) What is your differential diagnosis? (3) What is your most probable diagnosis and what is your level of certainty on this? Both subjective suitability and diagnostic accuracy scores were compared between the versions (M and NM) using repeated measures ANOVA. Results There were no differences in diagnostic accuracy parameters (M vs. NM next step: 0.79 vs. 0.77, p = 0.505; differential diagnosis 0.68 vs. 0.75, p = 0.072; most probable diagnosis 0.52 vs. 0.57, p = 0.216) and self-reported confidence (53.7% vs. 55.8% p = 0.390) of diagnoses previously seen with or without malpractice claim information. Subjective suitability- and complexity scores for the two versions were similar (suitability: 3.68 vs. 3.84, p = 0.568; complexity 3.71 vs. 3.88, p = 0.218) and significantly increased for higher education levels for both versions. Conclusion The similar diagnostic accuracy rates between cases studied with or without malpractice claim information suggests both versions are equally effective for CRE in GP training. Residents judged both case versions to be similarly suitable for CRE; both were considered more suitable for advanced than for novice learners

Teaching medical students to apply deliberate reflection

Purpose: Deliberate reflection on initial diagnosis has been found to repair diagnostic errors. We investigated the effectiveness of teaching students to use deliberate reflection on future cases and whether their usage would depend on their perception of case difficulty. Method:One-hundred-nineteen medical students solved cases either with deliberate-reflection or without instructions to reflect. One week later, all participants solved six cases, each with two equally likely diagnoses, but some symptoms in the case were associated with only one of the diagnoses (discriminating features). Participants provided one diagnosis and subsequently wrote down everything they remembered from it. After the first three cases, they were told that the next three would be difficult cases. Reflection was measured by the proportion of discriminating features recalled (overall; related to their provided diagnosis; related to alternative diagnosis). Results:The deliberate-reflection condition recalled more features for the alternative diagnosis than the control condition (p =.013) regardless of described difficulty. They also recalled more features related to their provided diagnosis on the first three cases (p =.004), but on the last three cases (described as difficult), there was no difference. Conclusion:Learning deliberate reflection helped students engage in more reflective reasoning when solving future cases. Practice points Learning deliberate reflection helped students engage in more reflective reasoning when solving future cases, regardless of described difficulty. Students who had not been taught deliberate reflection remembered more discriminating features (i.e. engaged in more reflective reasoning) when they expected cases to be difficult compared to cases that had not been described as difficult. Future studies should investigate whether teaching medical students the deliberate reflection procedure would also lead to improved diagnostic accuracy.</p

Reflections and Experiences of a Co-Researcher involved in a Renal Research Study

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is seen as a prerequisite for health research. However, current Patient and public involvement literature has noted a paucity of recording of patient and public involvement within research studies. There have been calls for more recordings and reflections, specifically on impact. Renal medicine has also had similar criticisms and any reflections on patient and public involvement has usually been from the viewpoint of the researcher. Roles of patient and public involvement can vary greatly from sitting on an Advisory Group to analysing data. Different PPI roles have been described within studies; one being a co-researcher. However, the role of the co-researcher is largely undefined and appears to vary from study to study. Methods The aims of this paper are to share one first time co-researcher's reflections on the impact of PPI within a mixed methods (non-clinical trial) renal research study. A retrospective, reflective approach was taken using data available to the co-researcher as part of the day-to-day research activity. Electronic correspondence and documents such as meeting notes, minutes, interview thematic analysis and comments on documents were re-examined. The co-researcher led on writing this paper. Results This paper offers a broad definition of the role of the co-researcher. The co-researcher reflects on undertaking and leading on the thematic analysis of interview transcripts, something she had not previously done before. The co-researcher identified a number of key themes; the differences in time and responsibility between being a coresearcher and an Advisory Group member; how the role evolved and involvement activities could match the co-researchers strengths (and the need for flexibility); the need for training and support and lastly, the time commitment. It was also noted that it is preferable that a co-researcher needs to be involved from the very beginning of the grant application. Conclusions The reflections, voices and views of those undertaking PPI has been largely underrepresented in the literature. The role of co-researcher was seen to be rewarding but demanding, requiring a large time commitment. It is hoped that the learning from sharing this experience will encourage others to undertake this role, and encourage researchers to reflect on the needs of those involved.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Can We Teach Reflective Reasoning in General-Practice Training Through Example-Based Learning and Learning by Doing?

Purpose: Flaws in physicians’ reasoning frequently result in diagnostic errors. The method of deliberate reflection was developed to stimulate physicians to deliberately reflect upon cases, which has shown to improve diagnostic performance in complex cases. In the current randomised controlled trial, we investigated whether deliberate reflection can be taught to general-practice residents. Additionally, we investigated whether engaging in deliberate reflection or studying deliberate-reflection models would be more effective. Methods: The study consisted of one learning session and two test sessions. Forty-four general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions in the learning session: (1) control without reflecting (n = 14); (2) engaging in deliberate reflection (n = 11); or (3) studying deliberate-reflection models (n = 19). To assess learning, they diagnosed new cases in both a same-day test and a delayed test one week later. In the delayed test, participants were additionally asked to elaborate on their decisions. We analysed diagnostic accuracy and whether their reasoning contained key elements of deliberate reflection. Results: We found no significant differences between the study conditions in diagnostic accuracy on the same-day test, p = .649, or on diagnostic accuracy, p = .747, and reflective reasoning, p = .647, on the delayed test. Discussion: Against expectations, deliberate reflection did not increase future reflective reasoning. Future studies are needed to investigate whether residents either did not sufficiently learn the procedure, did not adopt it when diagnosing cases without instructions to reflect, or whether the reflective-reasoning process as itself cannot be taught

Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help?

When physicians do not estimate their diagnostic accuracy correctly, i.e. show inaccurate diagnostic calibration, diagnostic errors or overtesting can occur. A previous study showed that physicians’ diagnostic calibration for easy cases improved, after they received feedback on their previous diagnoses. We investigated whether diagnostic calibration would also improve from this feedback when cases were more difficult. Sixty-nine general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the feedback condition, they diagnosed a case, rated their confidence in their diagnosis, their invested mental effort, and case complexity, and then were shown the correct diagnosis (feedback). This was repeated for 12 cases. Participants in the control condition did the same without receiving feedback. We analysed calibration in terms of (1) absolute accuracy (absolute difference between diagnostic accuracy and confidence), and (2) bias (confidence minus diagnostic calibration). There was no difference between the conditions in the measurements of calibration (absolute accuracy, p =.204; bias, p =.176). Post-hoc analyses showed that on correctly diagnosed cases (on which participants are either accurate or underconfident), calibration in the feedback condition was less accurate than in the control condition, p =.013. This study shows that feedback on diagnostic performance did not improve physicians’ calibration for more difficult cases. One explanation could be that participants were confronted with their mistakes and thereafter lowered their confidence ratings even if cases were diagnosed correctly. This shows how difficult it is to improve diagnostic calibration, which is important to prevent diagnostic errors or maltreatment

Diagnosis and management of Cornelia de Lange syndrome:first international consensus statement

Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is an archetypical genetic syndrome that is characterized by intellectual disability, well-defined facial features, upper limb anomalies and atypical growth, among numerous other signs and symptoms. It is caused by variants in any one of seven genes, all of which have a structural or regulatory function in the cohesin complex. Although recent advances in next-generation sequencing have improved molecular diagnostics, marked heterogeneity exists in clinical and molecular diagnostic approaches and care practices worldwide. Here, we outline a series of recommendations that document the consensus of a group of international experts on clinical diagnostic criteria, both for classic CdLS and non-classic CdLS phenotypes, molecular investigations, long-term management and care planning

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570