Cargando…

Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?

BACKGROUND: A key challenge clinicians face when considering differential diagnoses is whether the patient data have been adequately collected. Insufficient data may inadvertently lead to premature closure of the diagnostic process. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the application of a m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chew, Keng Sheng, van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G., Durning, Steven J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29187172
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1078-x
_version_ 1783282511812493312
author Chew, Keng Sheng
van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G.
Durning, Steven J.
author_facet Chew, Keng Sheng
van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G.
Durning, Steven J.
author_sort Chew, Keng Sheng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A key challenge clinicians face when considering differential diagnoses is whether the patient data have been adequately collected. Insufficient data may inadvertently lead to premature closure of the diagnostic process. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the application of a mnemonic checklist helps to stimulate more patient data collection, thus leading to better diagnostic consideration. METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios. RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = −1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00–10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16–9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = −2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90–10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83–11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = −0.524, p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1078-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5707798
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57077982017-12-06 Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off? Chew, Keng Sheng van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G. Durning, Steven J. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: A key challenge clinicians face when considering differential diagnoses is whether the patient data have been adequately collected. Insufficient data may inadvertently lead to premature closure of the diagnostic process. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the application of a mnemonic checklist helps to stimulate more patient data collection, thus leading to better diagnostic consideration. METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios. RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = −1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00–10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16–9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = −2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90–10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83–11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = −0.524, p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1078-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5707798/ /pubmed/29187172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1078-x Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chew, Keng Sheng
van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G.
Durning, Steven J.
Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
title Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
title_full Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
title_fullStr Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
title_full_unstemmed Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
title_short Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
title_sort investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29187172
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1078-x
work_keys_str_mv AT chewkengsheng investingintheuseofachecklistduringdifferentialdiagnosesconsiderationwhatsthetradeoff
AT vanmerrienboerjeroenjg investingintheuseofachecklistduringdifferentialdiagnosesconsiderationwhatsthetradeoff
AT durningstevenj investingintheuseofachecklistduringdifferentialdiagnosesconsiderationwhatsthetradeoff