6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Influence of predicting the diagnosis from history on the accuracy of physical examination

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          This study aimed to clarify the influence of predicting a correct diagnosis from the history on physical examination by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of auscultation with and without clinical information.

          Methods

          The participants were 102 medical students from the 2013 clinical clerkship course. Auscultation was performed with a cardiology patient simulator. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group listened to a different simulated heart murmur and then made a diagnosis without clinical information. Next, a history suggesting a different murmur was provided to each group and they predicted the diagnosis. Finally, the students listened to a murmur corresponding to the history provided and again made a diagnosis. Correct and incorrect diagnosis rates of auscultation were compared between students with and without clinical information, between students predicting a correct or incorrect diagnosis from the history (correct and incorrect prediction groups, respectively), and between students without clinical information and those making an incorrect prediction.

          Results

          For auscultation with or without clinical information, the correct diagnosis rate was 62.7% (128/204 participants) versus 54.4% (111/204 participants), showing no significant difference ( P=0.09). After receiving clinical information, a correct diagnosis was made by 102/117 students (87.2%) in the correct prediction group versus 26/87 students (29.9%) in the incorrect prediction group, showing a significant difference ( P=0.006). The correct diagnosis rate was also significantly lower in the incorrect prediction group than when the students performed auscultation without clinical information (54.4% versus 29.9%, P<0.001).

          Conclusion

          Obtaining a history alone does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of physical examination. However, accurately predicting the diagnosis from the history is associated with higher diagnostic accuracy of physical examination, while incorrect prediction is associated with lower diagnostic accuracy of examination.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.

          Although missed and delayed diagnoses have become an important patient safety concern, they remain largely unstudied, especially in the outpatient setting. To develop a framework for investigating missed and delayed diagnoses, advance understanding of their causes, and identify opportunities for prevention. Retrospective review of 307 closed malpractice claims in which patients alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ambulatory setting. 4 malpractice insurance companies. Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for patients, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients. Fifty-nine percent (106 of 181) of these errors were associated with serious harm, and 30% (55 of 181) resulted in death. For 59% (106 of 181) of the errors, cancer was the diagnosis involved, chiefly breast (44 claims [24%]) and colorectal (13 claims [7%]) cancer. The most common breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (100 of 181 [55%]), failure to create a proper follow-up plan (81 of 181 [45%]), failure to obtain an adequate history or perform an adequate physical examination (76 of 181 [42%]), and incorrect interpretation of diagnostic tests (67 of 181 [37%]). The leading factors that contributed to the errors were failures in judgment (143 of 181 [79%]), vigilance or memory (106 of 181 [59%]), knowledge (86 of 181 [48%]), patient-related factors (84 of 181 [46%]), and handoffs (36 of 181 [20%]). The median number of process breakdowns and contributing factors per error was 3 for both (interquartile range, 2 to 4). Reviewers were not blinded to the litigation outcomes, and the reliability of the error determination was moderate. Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the result of multiple breakdowns and individual and system factors. Awareness of the most common types of breakdowns and factors could help efforts to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dual processing and diagnostic errors.

            In this paper, I review evidence from two theories in psychology relevant to diagnosis and diagnostic errors. "Dual Process" theories of thinking, frequently mentioned with respect to diagnostic error, propose that categorization decisions can be made with either a fast, unconscious, contextual process called System 1 or a slow, analytical, conscious, and conceptual process, called System 2. Exemplar theories of categorization propose that many category decisions in everyday life are made by unconscious matching to a particular example in memory, and these remain available and retrievable individually. I then review studies of clinical reasoning based on these theories, and show that the two processes are equally effective; System 1, despite its reliance in idiosyncratic, individual experience, is no more prone to cognitive bias or diagnostic error than System 2. Further, I review evidence that instructions directed at encouraging the clinician to explicitly use both strategies can lead to consistent reduction in error rates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists.

              The aim of the study was to determine whether clinical information alters the CT report. This prospective blinded study consisted of 50 consecutive patients who attended a Department of Radiology for CT. Each study was interpreted by two of three consultant radiologists, before and after knowledge of the clinical information. 19 reports were changed after clinical information was known. Clinical follow-up was available in 15 cases. In ten cases the reports were more accurate after clinical information and in five cases the reports were less accurate. In three of the five cases where accuracy was reduced, the clinical information was incorrect. It was concluded that clinical information affects the CT report. If the information is accurate it has a beneficial effect; if it is inaccurate it has a detrimental effect. The more complex the investigation, the more important the clinical information. There was a correlation between readers regarding the influence of clinical information. Correct clinical information therefore improves the radiology report. It is the responsibility of the clinician to provide this information in an accurate and legible form.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Adv Med Educ Pract
                Adv Med Educ Pract
                Advances in Medical Education and Practice
                Advances in Medical Education and Practice
                Dove Medical Press
                1179-7258
                2015
                20 February 2015
                : 6
                : 143-148
                Affiliations
                Department of General Medicine, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Kiyoshi Shikino, Department of General Medicine, Chiba University Hospital, 1-8-1, Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, Tel +81 43 222 7171 (ext 6438); +81 43 224 4758 (direct line), Fax +81 43 224 4758, Email kshikino@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                amep-6-143
                10.2147/AMEP.S77315
                4345897
                25759604
                b9e367a2-b5df-487c-b781-05e7bc489a45
                © 2015 Shikino et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                cardiac examination,clinical history,clinical reasoning,diagnostic accuracy,general medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article