Cargando…
Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training?
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294315/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37365590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04448-1 |
_version_ | 1785063167966052352 |
---|---|
author | van Sassen, Charlotte Mamede, Silvia Bos, Michiel van den Broek, Walter Bindels, Patrick Zwaan, Laura |
author_facet | van Sassen, Charlotte Mamede, Silvia Bos, Michiel van den Broek, Walter Bindels, Patrick Zwaan, Laura |
author_sort | van Sassen, Charlotte |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04448-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10294315 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102943152023-06-28 Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? van Sassen, Charlotte Mamede, Silvia Bos, Michiel van den Broek, Walter Bindels, Patrick Zwaan, Laura BMC Med Educ Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04448-1. BioMed Central 2023-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10294315/ /pubmed/37365590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04448-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research van Sassen, Charlotte Mamede, Silvia Bos, Michiel van den Broek, Walter Bindels, Patrick Zwaan, Laura Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? |
title | Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? |
title_full | Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? |
title_fullStr | Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? |
title_full_unstemmed | Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? |
title_short | Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training? |
title_sort | do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during gp training? |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294315/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37365590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04448-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vansassencharlotte domalpracticeclaimclinicalcasevignettesenhancediagnosticaccuracyandacceptanceinclinicalreasoningeducationduringgptraining AT mamedesilvia domalpracticeclaimclinicalcasevignettesenhancediagnosticaccuracyandacceptanceinclinicalreasoningeducationduringgptraining AT bosmichiel domalpracticeclaimclinicalcasevignettesenhancediagnosticaccuracyandacceptanceinclinicalreasoningeducationduringgptraining AT vandenbroekwalter domalpracticeclaimclinicalcasevignettesenhancediagnosticaccuracyandacceptanceinclinicalreasoningeducationduringgptraining AT bindelspatrick domalpracticeclaimclinicalcasevignettesenhancediagnosticaccuracyandacceptanceinclinicalreasoningeducationduringgptraining AT zwaanlaura domalpracticeclaimclinicalcasevignettesenhancediagnosticaccuracyandacceptanceinclinicalreasoningeducationduringgptraining |