Accessible Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter July 12, 2021

Use of a structured approach and virtual simulation practice to improve diagnostic reasoning

Michael Dekhtyar ORCID logo, Yoon Soo Park, Judy Kalinyak, Saumil M. Chudgar, Kelly Bossenbroek Fedoriw, Khadeja J. Johnson, Craig F. Knoche, Lisa Martinez, Nina Mingioni, Amber T. Pincavage, Rachel Salas, Fred Sanfilippo, Stephen M. Sozio, Nancy Weigle, Sarah Wood, Jillian Zavodnick and Scott Stern
From the journal Diagnosis

Abstract

Objectives

In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine IOM estimated that 12 million patients were misdiagnosed annually. This suggests that despite prolonged training in medical school and residency there remains a need to improve diagnostic reasoning education. This study evaluates a new approach.

Methods

A total of 285 medical students were enrolled in this 8 center, IRB approved trial. Students were randomized to receive training in either abdominal pain (AP) or loss of consciousness (LOC). Baseline diagnostic accuracy of the two different symptoms was assessed by completing a multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination and virtual patient encounters. Following a structured educational intervention, including a lecture on the diagnostic approach to that symptom and three virtual patient practice cases, each student was re-assessed.

Results

The change in diagnostic accuracy on virtual patient encounters was compared between (1) baseline and post intervention and (2) post intervention students trained in the prescribed symptom vs. the alternate symptom (controls). The completeness of the student’s differential diagnosis was also compared. Comparison of proportions were conducted using χ2-tests. Mixed-effects regressions were used to examine differences accounting for case and repeated measures. Compared with baseline, both the AP and LOC groups had marked post-intervention improvements in obtaining a correct final diagnosis; a 27% absolute improvement in the AP group (p<0.001) and a 32% absolute improvement in the LOC group (p<0.001). Compared with controls (the groups trained in the alternate symptoms), the rate of correct diagnoses increased by 13% but was not statistically significant (p=0.132). The completeness and efficiency of the differential diagnoses increased by 16% (β=0.37, p<0.001) and 17% respectively (β=0.45, p<0.001).

Conclusions

The study showed that a virtual patient platform combined with a diagnostic reasoning framework could be used for education and diagnostic assessment and improved correct diagnosis compared with baseline performance in a simulated platform.


Corresponding author: Dr. Scott Stern, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, 5756 S Dorchester Ave, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA, Phone: +1 773 702 4082, E-mail:

Funding source: Billi and Bernie Marcus Foundation

Award Identifier / Grant number: NA

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lisa Ksandr, project administrator at the American Medical Association, for her expert logistical assistance with coordinating study activities. Additionally, we would like to thank Drs. Susan Skochelak, Richard Hawkins, and Sally Santen for their thoughtful contributions throughout the development of the protocol and analysis of the data. The authors would also like to thank the faculty and staff who worked on the study from Duke University School of Medicine, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

  1. Research funding: This study has been made possible with the generous support of The Marcus Foundation.

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

  3. Competing interests: Mr. Dekhtyar was a paid employee of the American Medical Association. Dr. Sanfilippo is a paid consultant of The Marcus Foundation. Mr. Knoche is the retired co-founder of i-Human Patients, a Kaplan Healthcare company. Dr. Kalinyak is VP and Chief Medical Officer for i-Human Patients by Kaplan. Dr. Stern is co-editor of the book Symptom-to-Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Guide, and was a consultant and contributor of educational cases and lecture videos distributed by IHP by Kaplan.

  4. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  5. Ethical approval: The University of Illinois at Chicago, the central review board for the AMA, and each participating site’s review board designated this study as exempt.

Appendix

AP cases: abdominal aortic aneurysm, appendicitis, biliary colic, choledocholithiasis, chronic mesenteric ischemia, diverticulitis, ectopic pregnancy, irritable bowel syndrome, large and small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, and peptic ulcer disease with and without perforation.

LOC cases; aortic stenosis, AV heart block, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, hypoglycemia, orthostatic syncope, retroperitoneal hemorrhage, seizure, vasovagal syncope, ventricular tachycardia, and the Wolff Parkinson White syndrome.

References

1. National Academy of Sciences. Engineering, and medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. Search in Google Scholar

2. Stern, SDC, Cifu, AS, Altkorn, D. Symptom to diagnosis: an evidence-based guide, 4th ed. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill Education; 2020. Search in Google Scholar

3. Paniagua, MA, Swygert, KA. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. Philadelphia, PA: National Board of Medical Examiners; 2016. Search in Google Scholar

4. Croskerry, P. From mindless to mindful practice-cognitive bias and clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 2013;368:2445–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp1303712. Search in Google Scholar

5. Newman-Toker, DE, Pronovost, PJ. Diagnostic errors-the next frontier for patient safety. J Am Med Assoc 2009;310:1060–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.249. Search in Google Scholar

6. Brush, JE, Sherbine, J, Norman, GR. How expert clinicians intuitively recognize a medical diagnosis. Am J Med 2017;130:629–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.01.045. Search in Google Scholar

7. Croskerry, P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med 2009;84:1022–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181ace703. Search in Google Scholar

8. Coderre, S, Mandlin, Harasym, PH, Fick, GH. Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Med Educ 2003;37:695–703. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01577.x. Search in Google Scholar

9. Durning, SJ, Trowbridge, RL, Shuwirth, L. Clinical reasoning and diagnostic error: a call to merge two worlds to improve patient care. Acad Med 2020;95:1159–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003041. Search in Google Scholar

10. Murray, H, Savage, T, Rang, L, Messenger, D. Teaching diagnostic reasoning: using simulation and mixed practice to build competence. Can J Emerg Med 2018;20:142–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2017.357. Search in Google Scholar

11. Eva, KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ 2005;39:98–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x. Search in Google Scholar

12. Sklar, DP. Teaching the diagnostic process as a model to improve medical education. Acad Med 2017;92:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001481. Search in Google Scholar

13. Norman, G. Medical Education: past, present and future. Perspect Med Educ 2012;1:6–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-012-0002-7. Search in Google Scholar

14. Trowbridge, RL, Olson, APJ. Becoming a teacher of clinical reasoning. Diagnosis 2018;5:11–4. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0004. Search in Google Scholar

15. Lambe, KA, O’Reilly, G, Kelly, BD, Curristan, S. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:808–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004417. Search in Google Scholar

16. Nendaz, MR, Gut, AM, Louis-Simonet, M, Perrier, A, Vu, NV. Bringing explicit insight into cognitive psychology features during clinical reasoning seminars: a prospective, controlled study. Educ Health 2011;24:496. Search in Google Scholar

17. Iobst, WF, Trowbridge, R, Philibert, I. Teaching and assessing clinical reasoning through the use of entrustment. J Grad Med Educ 2013;5:517–8. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00211.1. Search in Google Scholar

18. ten Cate, O, Hart, D, Ankel, F, Ankel, F, Busari, J, Englander, R, et al.. Entrustment decision making in clinical training. Acad Med 2016;91:191–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001044. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-12-14
Accepted: 2021-05-25
Published Online: 2021-07-12

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston