Wolf E. Hautz

Diagnostic Performance by Medical Students Working Individually or in Teams

Diagnostic errors contribute substantially to preventable medical error.1 Cognitive error is among the leading causes and mostly results from faulty data synthesis.2 Furthermore, reflecting on their confidence does not prevent physicians from committing diagnostic errors.1 Diagnostic decisions usually are not made by individual physicians working alone. Our aim was to investigate the effect of working in pairs as opposed to alone on diagnostic performance.

Interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based training leads to safe sedation procedures in the emergency department

BackgroundSedation is a procedure required for many interventions in the Emergency department (ED) such as reductions, surgical procedures or cardioversions. However, especially under emergency conditions with high risk patients and rapidly changing interdisciplinary and interprofessional teams, the procedure caries important risks. It is thus vital but difficult to implement a standard operating procedure for sedation procedures in any ED. Reports on both, implementation strategies as well as their success are currently lacking. This study describes the development, implementation and clinical evaluation of an interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based sedation training concept.MethodsAll physicians and nurses with specialised training in emergency medicine at the Berne University Department of Emergency Medicine participated in a mandatory interdisciplinary and interprofessional simulation-based sedation training. The curriculum consisted of an individual self-learning module, an airway skill training course, three simulation-based team training cases, and a final practical learning course in the operating theatre. Before and after each training session, self-efficacy, awareness of emergency procedures, knowledge of sedation medication and crisis resource management were assessed with a questionnaire. Changes in these measures were compared via paired tests, separately for groups formed based on experience and profession. To assess the clinical effect of training, we collected patient and team satisfaction as well as duration and complications for all sedations in the ED within the year after implementation. We further compared time to beginning of procedure, time for duration of procedure and time until discharge after implementation with the one year period before the implementation. Cohen’s d was calculated as effect size for all statistically significant tests.ResultsFifty staff members (26 nurses and 24 physicians) participated in the training. In all subgroups, there is a significant increase in self-efficacy and knowledge with high effect size (dz = 1.8). The learning is independent of profession and experience level. In the clinical evaluation after implementation, we found no major complications among the sedations performed. Time to procedure significantly improved after the introduction of the training (d = 0.88).DiscussionLearning is independent of previous working experience and equally effective in raising the self-efficacy and knowledge in all professional groups. Clinical outcome evaluation confirms the concepts safety and feasibility.ConclusionAn interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based sedation training is an efficient way to implement a conscious sedation concept in an ED.

Factors predicting a change in diagnosis in patients hospitalised through the emergency room: a prospective observational study

Introduction Emergency rooms (ERs) generally assign a preliminary diagnosis to patients, who are then hospitalised and may subsequently experience a change in their lead diagnosis (cDx). In ERs, the cDx rate varies from around 15% to more than 50%. Among the most frequent reasons for diagnostic errors are cognitive slips, which mostly result from faulty data synthesis. Furthermore, physicians have been repeatedly found to be poor self-assessors and to be overconfident in the quality of their diagnosis, which limits their ability to improve. Therefore, some of the clinically most relevant research questions concern how diagnostic decisions are made, what determines their quality and what can be done to improve them. Research that addresses these questions is, however, still rare. In particular, field studies that allow for generalising findings from controlled experimental settings are lacking. The ER, with its high throughput and its many simultaneous visits, is perfectly suited for the study of factors contributing to diagnostic error. With this study, we aim to identify factors that allow prediction of an ERs diagnostic performance. Knowledge of these factors as well as of their relative importance allows for the development of organisational, medical and educational strategies to improve the diagnostic performance of ERs. Methods and analysis We will conduct a field study by collecting diagnostic decision data, physician confidence and a number of influencing factors in a real-world setting to model real-world diagnostic decisions and investigate the adequacy, validity and informativeness of physician confidence in these decisions. We will specifically collect data on patient, physician and encounter factors as predictors of the dependent variables. Statistical methods will include analysis of variance and a linear mixed-effects model. Ethics and dissemination The Bern ethics committee approved the study under KEK Number 197/15. Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. Authorship will be determined according to ICMJE guidelines. Trial registration number The study protocol Version 1.0 from 17 May 2015 is registered in the Inselspital Research Database Information System (IRDIS) and with the IRB (‘Kantonale Ethikkomission’) Bern under KEK Number 197/15.

The Potential of Collective Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: Pooling Medical Students’ Independent Decisions Improves Diagnostic Performance

Background. Evidence suggests that pooling multiple independent diagnoses can improve diagnostic accuracy in well-defined tasks. We investigated whether this is also the case for diagnostics in emergency medicine, an ill-defined task environment where diagnostic errors are rife. Methods. A computer simulation study was conducted based on empirical data from 2 published experimental studies. In the computer experiments, 285 medical students independently diagnosed 6 simulated patients arriving at the emergency room with dyspnea. Participants’ diagnoses (n = 1,710), confidence ratings, and expertise levels were entered into a computer simulation. Virtual groups of different sizes were randomly created, and 3 collective intelligence rules (follow-the-plurality rule, follow-the-most-confident rule, and follow-the-most-senior rule) were applied to combine the independent decisions into a final diagnosis. For different group sizes, the performance levels (i.e., percentage of correct diagnoses) of the 3 collective intelligence rules were compared with each other and against the average individual accuracy. Results. For all collective intelligence rules, combining independent decisions substantially increased performance relative to average individual performance. For groups of 4 or fewer, the follow-the-most-confident rule outperformed the other rules; for larger groups, the follow-the-plurality rule performed best. For example, combining 5 independent decisions using the follow-the-plurality rule increased diagnostic accuracy by 22 percentage points. These results were robust across case difficulty and expertise level. Limitations of the study include the use of simulated patients diagnosed by medical students. Whether results generalize to clinical practice is currently unknown. Conclusion. Combining independent decisions may substantially improve the quality of diagnoses in emergency medicine and may thus enhance patient safety.

Shame in Medical Education: A Randomized Study of the Acquisition of Intimate Examination Skills and Its Effect on Subsequent Performance

ABSTRACT Theory: Although medical students are exposed to a variety of emotions, the impact of emotions on learning has received little attention so far. Shame-provoking intimate examinations are among the most memorable events for students. Their emotions, however, are rarely addressed during training, potentially leading to withdrawal and avoidance and, consequently, performance deficits. However, emotions of negative valance such as shame may be particularly valuable for learning, as they might prompt mental rehearsal. We investigated the effect of shame on learning from the perspective of cognitive load theory. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that (a) training modality determines state shame, (b) state shame directly affects the quality of a clinical breast examination as one example of a shame-provoking exam, and (c) students who experience shame during training outperform those who just discuss the emotion during subsequent performance assessments. Method: Forty-nine advanced medical students participated in a randomized controlled, single-blinded study. After a basic, low-fidelity breast examination training, students were randomized to further practice either on a high-fidelity mannequin including a discussion of their emotions or by examining a standardized patients real breasts. Last, all students conducted a breast examination in a simulated doctors office. Dependent variables were measures of outcome and process quality and of situational shame. Results: Students training with a standardized patient experienced more shame during training (p < .001, d = 2.19), spent more time with the patient (p = .005, d = 0.89), and documented more breast lumps (p = .026, d = 0.65) than those training on a mannequin. Shame interacted with training modality, F(1, 45) = 21.484, p < .001, η2 = 0.323, and differences in performance positively correlated to decline in state shame (r = .335, p = .022). Conclusions: Students experiencing state shame during training do reenact their training and process germane load—in other words, learn. Furthermore, altering simulation modality offers a possibility for educators to adjust the affective component of training to their objectives.

Development and alignment of undergraduate medical curricula in a web-based, dynamic Learning Opportunities, Objectives and Outcome Platform (LOOOP)

Abstract Introduction: This study presents a web-based method and its interface ensuring alignment of all parts of a curriculum map including competencies, objectives, teaching and assessment methods, workload and patient availability. Needs, acceptance and effectiveness are shown through a nine-year study. Methods: After a comprehensive needs assessment, the curriculum map and a web-based interface “Learning Opportunities, Objectives and Outcome Platform” (LOOOP) were developed according to Harden’s conceptual framework of 10-steps for curriculum mapping. The outcome was measured by surveys and results of interdisciplinary MCQ-assessments. The usage rates and functionalities were analysed. Results: The implementation of LOOOP was significantly associated with improved perception of the curriculum structure by teachers and students, quality of defined objectives and their alignment with teaching and assessment, usage by students to prepare examinations and their scores in interdisciplinary MCQ-assessment. Additionally, LOOOP improved the curriculum coordination by faculty, and assisted departments for identifying patient availability for clinical training. Conclusion: LOOOP is well accepted among students and teachers, has positive effect on curriculum development, facilitates effective utilisation of educational resources and improves student’s outcomes. Currently, LOOOP is used in five undergraduate medical curricula including 85,000 mapped learning opportunities (lectures, seminars), 5000 registered users (students, teachers) and 380,000 yearly page-visits.

Assessing clinical reasoning (ASCLIRE): Instrument development and validation

Clinical reasoning is an essential competency in medical education. This study aimed at developing and validating a test to assess diagnostic accuracy, collected information, and diagnostic decision time in clinical reasoning. A norm-referenced computer-based test for the assessment of clinical reasoning (ASCLIRE) was developed, integrating the entire clinical decision process. In a cross-sectional study participants were asked to choose as many diagnostic measures as they deemed necessary to diagnose the underlying disease of six different cases with acute or sub-acute dyspnea and provide a diagnosis. 283 students and 20 content experts participated. In addition to diagnostic accuracy, respective decision time and number of used relevant diagnostic measures were documented as distinct performance indicators. The empirical structure of the test was investigated using a structural equation modeling approach. Experts showed higher accuracy rates and lower decision times than students. In a cross-sectional comparison, the diagnostic accuracy of students improved with the year of study. Wrong diagnoses provided by our sample were comparable to wrong diagnoses in practice. We found an excellent fit for a model with three latent factors—diagnostic accuracy, decision time, and choice of relevant diagnostic information—with diagnostic accuracy showing no significant correlation with decision time. ASCLIRE considers decision time as an important performance indicator beneath diagnostic accuracy and provides evidence that clinical reasoning is a complex ability comprising diagnostic accuracy, decision time, and choice of relevant diagnostic information as three partly correlated but still distinct aspects.

How thinking about groups is different from groupthink

Firstly, the effects of interventions are diluted by many confounding factors on the route from intervention to patient outcome. Each confounding factor on this route inevitably lowers the effect size of an intervention. Nevertheless, in order to achieve adequate power, studies of such interventions would be required to cover a variety of contexts, which would in turn introduce new confounders.

Six degrees of separation: the small world of medical education.

Conventional wisdom has it that everyone on earth is on average only six steps away from knowing any other person through ‘a friend of a friend’. On a local level, however, many people experience that most of their acquaintances know each other. It is thus hard to imagine how such a highly clustered group could be so well connected to the rest of the world. In this paper, we investigate how co‐authorship connects scholars in medical education and whether the six degrees of separation hypothesis also applies to the network of authors in the field.

Comparability of outcome frameworks in medical education: Implications for framework development

Abstract Background: Given the increasing mobility of medical students and practitioners, there is a growing need for harmonization of medical education and qualifications. Although several initiatives have sought to compare national outcome frameworks, this task has proven a challenge. Drawing on an analysis of existing outcome frameworks, we identify factors that hinder comparability and suggest ways of facilitating comparability during framework development and revisions. Methods: We searched MedLine, EmBase and the Internet for outcome frameworks in medical education published by national or governmental organizations. We analyzed these frameworks for differences and similarities that influence comparability. Results: Of 1816 search results, 13 outcome frameworks met our inclusion criteria. These frameworks differ in five core features: history and origins, formal structure, medical education system, target audience and key terms. Many frameworks reference other frameworks without acknowledging these differences. Importantly, the level of detail of the outcomes specified differs both within and between frameworks. Conclusion: The differences identified explain some of the challenges involved in comparing outcome frameworks and medical qualifications. We propose a two-level model distinguishing between “core” competencies and culture-specific “secondary” competencies. This approach could strike a balance between local specifics and cross-national comparability of outcome frameworks and medical education.