Characteristics differentiating problem representation synthesis between novices and experts

Author:

McQuade Casey N.1ORCID,Simonson Michael G.1,Lister Julia23,Olson Andrew P. J.23,Zwaan Laura4,Rothenberger Scott D.1,Bonifacino Eliana1

Affiliation:

1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA

2. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine University of Minnesota School of Medicine Minneapolis Minnesota USA

3. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics University of Minnesota School of Medicine Minneapolis Minnesota USA

4. Erasmus Medical Center Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam Rotterdam the Netherlands

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundFormulating a thoughtful problem representation (PR) is fundamental to sound clinical reasoning and an essential component of medical education. Aside from basic structural recommendations, little consensus exists on what characterizes high‐quality PRs.ObjectivesTo elucidate characteristics that distinguish PRs created by experts and novices.MethodsEarly internal medicine residents (novices) and inpatient teaching faculty (experts) from two academic medical centers were given two written clinical vignettes and were instructed to write a PR and three‐item differential diagnosis for each. Deductive content analysis described the characteristics comprising PRs. An initial codebook of characteristics was refined iteratively. The primary outcome was differences in characteristic frequencies between groups. The secondary outcome was characteristics correlating with diagnostic accuracy. Mixed‐effects regression with random effects modeling compared case‐level outcomes by group.ResultsOverall, 167 PRs were analyzed from 30 novices and 54 experts. Experts included 0.8 fewer comorbidities (p < .01) and 0.6 more examination findings (p = .01) than novices on average. Experts were less likely to include irrelevant comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2–0.8) or a diagnosis (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1–0.8) compared with novices. Experts encapsulated clinical data into higher‐order terms (e.g., sepsis) than novices (p < .01) while including similar numbers of semantic qualifiers (SQs). Regardless of expertise level, PRs following a three‐part structure (e.g., demographics, temporal course, and clinical syndrome) and including temporal SQs were associated with diagnostic accuracy (p < .01).ConclusionsCompared with novices, expert PRs include less irrelevant data and synthesize information into higher‐order concepts. Future studies should determine whether targeted educational interventions for PRs improve diagnostic accuracy.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3