Valérie Dory

Insights into emergency physicians' minds in the seconds before and into a patient encounter.

Clinical reasoning is a core competency in medical practice. No study has explored clinical reasoning occurring before a clinical encounter, when physicians obtain preliminary information about the patient, and during the first seconds of the observation phase. This paper aims to understand what happens in emergency physicians’ minds when they acquire initial information about a patient, and when they first meet a patient. The authors carried out in-depth interviews based on the video recordings of emergency situations filmed in an “own-point-of-view-perspective”. 15 expert emergency physicians were interviewed between 2011 and 2012. Researchers analysed data using an interpretive approach based on thematic analysis and constant comparison. Almost all participants used a few critical pieces of information to generate hypotheses even before they actually met the patient. Pre-encounter hypotheses played a key role in the ensuing encounter by directing initial data gathering. Initial data, collected within the first few seconds of the encounter, included the patient’s position on the stretcher, the way they had been prepared, their facial expression, their breathing, and their skin colour. Physicians also rapidly appraised the seriousness of the patient’s overall condition, which determined their initial goals, i.e. initiating emergency treatment or pursuing the diagnostic investigation. The study brings new insights on what happens at the very beginning of the encounter between emergency physicians and patients. The results obtained from an innovative methodological approach open avenues for the development of clinical reasoning in learners.

Do emergency physicians trust their patients

The primary focus of research on the physician-patient relationship has been on patients’ trust in their physicians. In this study, we explored physicians’ trust in their patients. We held semi-structured interviews with expert emergency physicians concerning a patient they had just been managing. The physicians had been equipped with a head-mounted micro camera to film the encounter from an “own point of view perspective”. The footage was used to stimulate recall during the interviews. Several participants made judgments on the reliability of their patients’ accounts from the very beginning of the encounter. If accounts were not deemed reliable, participants implemented a variety of specific strategies in pursuing their history taking, i.e. checking for consistency by asking the same question at several points in the interview, cross-referencing information, questioning third-parties, examining the patient record, and systematically collecting data held to be objective. Our study raises the question of the influence of labeling patients as “reliable” or “unreliable” on their subsequent treatment in the emergency department. Further work is necessary to examine the accuracy of these judgments, the underlying cognitive processes (i.e. analytic versus intuitive) and their influence on decision-making.

Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part I. Clinical reasoning supervision and educational diagnosis

Abstract There are many obstacles to the timely identification of clinical reasoning difficulties in health professions education. This guide aims to provide readers with a framework for supervising clinical reasoning and identifying the potential difficulties as they may occur at each step of the reasoning process.

Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part II. Clinical reasoning difficulties: Management and remediation strategies

Abstract Part II of this AMEE Guide provides a detailed overview of the main difficulties in clinical reasoning, including the cues to look out for in clinical supervision, the root causes of each difficulty and targeted remediation strategies. Specific challenges and issues related to the management of clinical reasoning difficulties will also be discussed.

What steps are necessary to create written or web-based selected-response assessments?

Before we work out what constitutes an assessment’s value for a given cost in medical education, we must first outline the steps necessary to create an assessment, and then assign a cost to each step. In this study we undertook the first phase of this process: we sought to work out all the steps necessary to create written selected-response assessments. First, the lead author created an initial list of potential steps for developing written assessments. This was then distributed to the other three authors. These authors independently added further steps to the list. The lead author incorporated the contributions of these others and created a second draft. This process was repeated until consensus was achieved amongst the study’s authors. Next, the list was shared by means of an online questionnaire with 100 healthcare professionals with experience in medical education. The results of the authors’ and healthcare professionals’ thoughts and feedback on the steps, needed to create written assessment, are outlined below in full. We outlined the steps that are necessary to create written or web-based selected-response assessments.