• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

临床专家的诊断推理:他们与同行的区别是什么?

Diagnostic Reasoning by Expert Clinicians: What Distinguishes Them From Their Peers?

作者信息

Kumar Bharat, Ferguson Kristi, Swee Melissa, Suneja Manish

机构信息

Rheumatology, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, USA.

Medical Education, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, USA.

出版信息

Cureus. 2021 Nov 18;13(11):e19722. doi: 10.7759/cureus.19722. eCollection 2021 Nov.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.19722
PMID:34934585
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8684366/
Abstract

Objectives Expert clinicians (ECs) are defined in large part as a group of physicians recognized by their peers for their diagnostic reasoning abilities. However, their reasoning skills have not been quantitatively compared to other clinicians using a validated instrument. Methods We surveyed Internal Medicine physicians at the University of Iowa to identify ECs. These clinicians were administered the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory, along with an equivalent number of their peers in the general population of internists. Scores were tabulated for structure and thinking, as well as four previously identified elements of diagnostic reasoning (data acquisition, problem representation, hypothesis generation, and illness script search and selection). We compared scores between the two groups using the two-sample t-test. Results Seventeen ECs completed the inventory (100%). Out of 25 randomly-selected non-EC internists (IM), 19 completed the inventory (76%). Mean total scores were 187.2 and 175.8 for the EC and the IM groups respectively. Thinking and structure subscores were 91.5 and 95.71 for ECs, compared to 85.5 and 90.3 for IMs (p-values: 0.0783 and 0.1199, respectively). The mean data acquisition, problem representation, hypothesis generation, and illness script selection subscores for ECs were 4.46, 4.57, 4.71, and 4.46, compared to 4.13, 4.38, 4.45, and 4.13 in the IM group (p-values: 0.2077, 0.4528, 0.095, and 0.029, respectively). Conclusions ECs have greater proficiency in searching for and selecting illness scripts compared to their peers. There were no statistically significant differences between the other scores and subscores. These results will help to inform continuing medical education efforts to improve diagnostic reasoning.

摘要

目标 专家临床医生(ECs)在很大程度上被定义为一群因其诊断推理能力而受到同行认可的医生。然而,他们的推理技能尚未使用经过验证的工具与其他临床医生进行定量比较。方法 我们对爱荷华大学的内科医生进行了调查,以确定专家临床医生。这些临床医生接受了诊断思维量表测试,同时在内科医生总体中选取了同等数量的同行进行测试。对结构和思维得分以及先前确定的诊断推理的四个要素(数据采集、问题表征、假设生成以及疾病脚本搜索与选择)进行了制表。我们使用两样本t检验比较了两组的得分。结果 17名专家临床医生完成了量表测试(100%)。在25名随机选择的非专家内科医生(IM)中,19名完成了量表测试(76%)。专家临床医生组和内科医生组的平均总分分别为187.2和175.8。专家临床医生的思维和结构子得分分别为91.5和95.71,而内科医生为85.5和90.3(p值分别为0.0783和0.1199)。专家临床医生在数据采集、问题表征、假设生成和疾病脚本选择方面的平均子得分分别为4.46、4.57、4.71和4.46,而内科医生组分别为4.13、4.38、4.45和4.13(p值分别为0.2077、0.4528、0.095和0.029)。结论 与同行相比,专家临床医生在搜索和选择疾病脚本方面具有更高的熟练度。其他得分和子得分之间没有统计学上的显著差异。这些结果将有助于为改进诊断推理的继续医学教育工作提供信息。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6879/8684366/3320cbb2ab1e/cureus-0013-00000019722-i02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6879/8684366/e8c8a28b3f9a/cureus-0013-00000019722-i01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6879/8684366/3320cbb2ab1e/cureus-0013-00000019722-i02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6879/8684366/e8c8a28b3f9a/cureus-0013-00000019722-i01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6879/8684366/3320cbb2ab1e/cureus-0013-00000019722-i02.jpg

相似文献

1
Diagnostic Reasoning by Expert Clinicians: What Distinguishes Them From Their Peers?临床专家的诊断推理:他们与同行的区别是什么?
Cureus. 2021 Nov 18;13(11):e19722. doi: 10.7759/cureus.19722. eCollection 2021 Nov.
2
Embedding a longitudinal diagnostic reasoning curriculum in a residency program using a bolus/booster approach.采用推注/强化方法将纵向诊断推理课程融入住院医师培训项目。
Diagnosis (Berl). 2020 Jan 28;7(1):21-25. doi: 10.1515/dx-2019-0023.
3
Clinical Reasoning: Perspectives of Expert Clinicians on Reasoning Through Complex Clinical Cases.临床推理:专家临床医生对复杂临床病例推理的观点
Cureus. 2024 Jan 5;16(1):e51696. doi: 10.7759/cureus.51696. eCollection 2024 Jan.
4
Using illness scripts to teach clinical reasoning skills to medical students.运用疾病脚本向医学生传授临床推理技能。
Fam Med. 2010 Apr;42(4):255-61.
5
Teaching clinical reasoning to undergraduate medical students by illness script method: a randomized controlled trial.采用病例脚本法对本科医学生进行临床推理教学的随机对照试验。
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Feb 2;21(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02522-0.
6
Validation of undergraduate medical student script concordance test (SCT) scores on the clinical assessment of the acute abdomen.本科医学生急性腹痛临床评估脚本一致性测试(SCT)分数的验证
BMC Surg. 2016 Aug 17;16(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12893-016-0173-y.
7
The Management Script: A Practical Tool for Teaching Management Reasoning.管理脚本:教授管理推理的实用工具。
Acad Med. 2020 Aug;95(8):1179-1185. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003465.
8
Management reasoning scripts: Qualitative exploration using simulated physician-patient encounters.管理推理脚本:使用模拟医患接触进行定性探索。
Perspect Med Educ. 2022 Aug;11(4):196-206. doi: 10.1007/s40037-022-00714-y. Epub 2022 Jun 2.
9
Using the diagnostic thinking inventory in musculoskeletal physiotherapy: a validity and reliability study.在肌肉骨骼物理治疗中使用诊断思维量表:一项有效性和可靠性研究。
Physiother Res Int. 2021 Apr;26(2):e1895. doi: 10.1002/pri.1895. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
10
The IDEA Assessment Tool: Assessing the Reporting, Diagnostic Reasoning, and Decision-Making Skills Demonstrated in Medical Students' Hospital Admission Notes.IDEA评估工具:评估医学生住院病历中展示的报告、诊断推理和决策技能。
Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(2):163-73. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2015.1011654.

引用本文的文献

1
Validating the Korean shorter Diagnostic Thinking Inventory in medical education: a pilot study.验证韩国版较短诊断思维量表在医学教育中的有效性:一项试点研究。
Korean J Med Educ. 2024 Mar;36(1):17-26. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2024.281. Epub 2024 Feb 28.
2
Clinical Reasoning: Perspectives of Expert Clinicians on Reasoning Through Complex Clinical Cases.临床推理:专家临床医生对复杂临床病例推理的观点
Cureus. 2024 Jan 5;16(1):e51696. doi: 10.7759/cureus.51696. eCollection 2024 Jan.

本文引用的文献

1
The Academy of Master Clinicians: Recognition of Clinical Excellence Within an Academic Medical Center.临床大师学会:学术医疗中心内临床卓越的认可。
Acad Med. 2018 Feb;93(2):220-223. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001858.
2
How Expert Clinicians Intuitively Recognize a Medical Diagnosis.临床专家如何凭直觉做出医学诊断。
Am J Med. 2017 Jun;130(6):629-634. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.01.045. Epub 2017 Feb 24.
3
The Master Clinician's Approach to Diagnostic Reasoning.临床专家的诊断推理方法。
Am J Med. 2017 Jan;130(1):5-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.07.024. Epub 2016 Aug 23.
4
Using script theory to cultivate illness script formation and clinical reasoning in health professions education.运用脚本理论在卫生专业教育中培养疾病脚本形成和临床推理能力。
Can Med Educ J. 2015 Dec 11;6(2):e61-70. eCollection 2015.
5
Reflecting upon reflection in diagnostic reasoning.反思诊断推理中的反思
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1195-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000415.
6
Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning.促进临床诊断推理的教育策略。
N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 23;355(21):2217-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra054782.
7
The clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts.诊断专家的临床推理特征。
Med Teach. 2003 May;25(3):308-13. doi: 10.1080/0142159031000100427.
8
Quantitative assessment of diagnostic ability.诊断能力的定量评估。
Med Educ. 1990 Sep;24(5):413-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1990.tb02650.x.