Lost in translation: Unveiling medical students' untold errors of medical history documentation

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe accurate documentation of a medical history interview is an important goal in medical education. As students' documentation of medical history interviews is mostly decentralised on the wards, a systematic assessment of documentation quality is missing. We therefore evaluated the extent of details missed in students' medical history reports in a standardised setting.MethodsIn this prospective, observational study, 123 of 380 students (32.4%) participated in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) regarding history taking and documentation. Based on the interviews and nine deductively selected main categories, a categorical system was established using a summarising qualitative content analysis. The items in the transcripts (defined as ground truth) and in students' reports were labelled and assigned to the correct subcategory. The ground truth and students' reports were compared to quantify students' documentation completeness.ResultsNext to the nine deductively selected main categories, 61 subcategories were defined. A total of 8943 items were labelled in the 123 interview transcripts (ground truth), compared with 5870 items labelled in students' reports (65.6% completeness of students' reports compared with ground truth). The main category personal details overlapped with 94.2% between students' report and ground truth in contrast to the main category with the highest discrepancy, allergy, with 41.1% overlap. Pertinent negative items and non‐numerical quantifications were often missed.ConclusionsMedical students show incomplete documentation of medical history interviews. Therefore, accurate documentation should be taught as an important goal in medical education.