Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter May 7, 2018

Diagnostic accuracy in Family Medicine residents using a clinical decision support system (DXplain): a randomized-controlled trial

Adrian Israel Martinez-Franco ORCID logo, Melchor Sanchez-Mendiola, Juan Jose Mazon-Ramirez, Isaias Hernandez-Torres, Carlos Rivero-Lopez, Troy Spicer and Adrian Martinez-Gonzalez
From the journal Diagnosis

Abstract

Background:

Clinical reasoning is an essential skill in physicians, required to address the challenges of accurate patient diagnoses. The goal of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy in Family Medicine residents, with and without the use of a clinical decision support tool (DXplain http://www.mghlcs.org/projects/dxplain).

Methods:

A total of 87 first-year Family Medicine residents, training at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) Postgraduate Studies Division in Mexico City, participated voluntarily in the study. They were randomized to a control group and an intervention group that used DXplain. Both groups solved 30 clinical diagnosis cases (internal medicine, pediatrics, gynecology and emergency medicine) in a multiple-choice question test that had validity evidence.

Results:

The percent-correct score in the Diagnosis Test in the control group (44 residents) was 74.1±9.4 (mean±standard deviation) whereas the DXplain intervention group (43 residents) had a score of 82.4±8.5 (p<0.001). There were significant differences in the four knowledge content areas of the test.

Conclusions:

Family Medicine residents have appropriate diagnostic accuracy that can improve with the use of DXplain. This could help decrease diagnostic errors, improve patient safety and the quality of medical practice. The use of clinical decision support systems could be useful in educational interventions and medical practice.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Torruco-García U, Martínez-Franco AI, Sánchez-Mendiola M. Chapter 25 clinical reasoning. In: Sánchez-Mendiola M, Martínez-Franco AI, editors. Biomedical informatics, 2nd ed. Mexico City, Mexico: UNAM/Elsevier, 2013:291–303. Search in Google Scholar

2. Norman G. Building on experience – the development of clinical reasoning. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2251–2. Search in Google Scholar

3. Sox HC. Chapter 2 Differential diagnosis. In: Sox HC, Higgins MC, Owens DK, editors. Medical decision making. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 2006:9–26. Search in Google Scholar

4. Charlin B, Boshuizen HP, Custers EJ, Feltovich PJ. Scripts and clinical reasoning. Med Educ 2007;41:1178–84. Search in Google Scholar

5. Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956;101:343–52. Search in Google Scholar

6. Mamede S, van Gog T, van den Berge K, Rikers RM, van Saase JL, van Guldener C, et al. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. J Am Med Assoc 2010;304:1198. Search in Google Scholar

7. Croskerry P. From mindless to mindful practice – cognitive bias and clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 2013;368:2445–8. Search in Google Scholar

8. Walton MM, Barraclough BH, Van Staalduinen SA, Elliott SL. An educational approach to improving healthcare safety and quality. J Evid Based Med 2009;2:136–42. Search in Google Scholar

9. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird N, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers A, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patientes results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370–6. Search in Google Scholar

10. Walton M, Woodward H, Van Staalduinen S, Lemer C, Greaves F, Noble D, et al. The WHO patient safety curriculum guide for medical schools. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:542–6. Search in Google Scholar

11. Aranaz-Andrés JM, Aibar-Remón C, Vitaller-Burillo J, Requena-Puche J, Terol-García E, Kelley E, et al. Impact and preventability of adverse events in Spanish public hospitals: results of the Spanish National Study of Adverse Events (ENEAS). Int J Qual Health Care 2009;21:408–14. Search in Google Scholar

12. Aranaz-Andrés JM, Aibar-Remón C, Limón-Ramírez R, Amarilla A, Restrepo FR, Urroz O, et al. Prevalence of adverse events in the hospitals of five Latin American countries: results of the “Iberoamerican Study of Adverse Events” (IBEAS). BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:1043–51. Search in Google Scholar

13. Britten N, Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Barber N, Bradley CP. Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study. Br Med J 2000;320:484–8. Search in Google Scholar

14. Guly HR. Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J 2001;18:263–9. Search in Google Scholar

15. Runciman WB, Roughead EE, Semple SJ, Adams RJ. Adverse drug events and medication errors in Australia. Int J Qual Heal Care 2003;15:49i–59. Search in Google Scholar

16. APEAS Study: Study about patient safety at the first level of attention. Madrid, Spain: Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs, 2008. Available at: http://www.msps.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/docs/LibroAPEAS.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

17. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error – the third leading cause of death in the US. Br Med J 2016;2139:1–5. Search in Google Scholar

18. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. Br Med J 2005;330:765. Search in Google Scholar

19. Barnett GO, Cimino JJ, Hupp JA, Hoffer EP. DXplain. An evolving diagnostic decision-support system. J Am Med Assoc 1987;258:67–74. Search in Google Scholar

20. Bond WF, Schwartz LM, Weaver KR, Levick D, Giuliano M, Graber ML. Differential diagnosis generators: an evaluation of currently available computer programs. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:213–9. Search in Google Scholar

21. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003;37:830–7. Search in Google Scholar

22. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ 2002;15:309–34. Search in Google Scholar

23. Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(Suppl 2):ii21–7. Search in Google Scholar

24. Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:418–25. Search in Google Scholar

25. Graber ML, Byrne C, Johnston D. The impact of electronic health records on diagnosis. Diagnosis 2017;4:211–23. Search in Google Scholar

26. Martínez-González A, Lifshitz-Guinzberg A, Trejo-Mejía JA, Torruco-García U, Fortoul-Van Der Goes TI, Flores-Hernández F, et al. Diagnostic and formative evaluation of competences in medical students when entering the internship. Gac Med Mex 2017;153:6–15. Search in Google Scholar

27. Martínez-González A, Sánchez-Mendiola M, Méndez-Ramírez I, Trejo-Mejía JA. Level of clinical competence in seven cohorts of medical students at the end of the internship. Gac Med Mex 2016;152:608–15. Search in Google Scholar

28. Carraccio CL, Benson BJ, Nixon LJ, Derstine PL. From the educational bench to the clinical bedside: translating the Dreyfus developmental model to the learning of clinical skills. Acad Med 2008;83:761–7. Search in Google Scholar

29. Sandars J, Cleary TJ. Self-regulation theory: applications to medical education: AMEE Guide No. 58. Med Teach 2011;33:875–86. Search in Google Scholar

30. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:585–600. Search in Google Scholar

31. Eslami S, Abu-Hanna A, de Keizer NF. Evaluation of outpatient computerized physician medication order entry systems: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:400–6. Search in Google Scholar

32. Apkon M, Mattera JA, Lin Z, Herrin J, Bradley EH, Carbone M, et al. A randomized outpatient trial of a decision-support information technology tool. Arch Intern Med 2005;165: 2388–94. Search in Google Scholar

33. Alonso-Carrión L, Sánchez-Lora FJ, Hinojosa-López C, Porras-Vivas JJ, Cuenca-Guerrero A, Abarca-Costalago M. The accuracy of the diagnosis in internal medicine and the influence of a computerised system on clinical reasoning. Educ Médica 2015;16:184–7. Search in Google Scholar

34. Schiff GD, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert B, Elstein AS, et al. Diagnosing Diagnosis Errors: Lessons from a Multi-institutional Collaborative Project [Internet]. Vol. 169, Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation (Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005 [cited 2013 Aug 31]. 1881 p. Available from: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA434037. Search in Google Scholar

Supplemental Material:

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2017-0045).

Received: 2017-12-29
Accepted: 2018-3-26
Published Online: 2018-5-7
Published in Print: 2018-6-27

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston