Leaper D J, Gill P W, Staniland J R, Horrocks J C, de Dombal F T
Br Med J. 1973 Sep 15;3(5880):569-74. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5880.569.
An analysis of observations made during 1,307 diagnoses by a total of 28 clinicians (503 diagnoses in real life, and 804 on simulated patients) concerned primarily the interview of patients suffering from abdominal pain. Interviews ranged from 10 to 35 questions, and from "stereotyped" procedures, in which identical (and often irrelevant) questions were asked to each patient, to "adaptive" interviews, in which specific relevant questions were put to each patient. Senior clinicians tended to ask fewer, more relevant questions than their junior counterparts; and urgent cases were dealt with in a more adaptive fashion than routine cases in outpatients. Disappointingly, there was considerable difference between real-life and simulated situations. From these results it is suggested (a) that the "diagnostic process" does not exist, (b) that any automated diagnostic system must be flexible to accommodate the wishes of a variety of clinicians, and (c) that studies based on artificial clinical situations should be treated with extreme caution.
对28位临床医生进行的1307次诊断(其中503次为实际生活中的诊断,804次为对模拟患者的诊断)过程中的观察分析,主要涉及对腹痛患者的问诊。问诊问题数量从10个到35个不等,方式从“刻板”程序(即对每位患者都问相同的(且往往无关的)问题)到“适应性”问诊(即针对每位患者提出特定的相关问题)。资深临床医生往往比初级临床医生问的问题更少、更具相关性;在门诊中,急症病例的处理方式比常规病例更具适应性。令人失望的是,实际生活情况和模拟情况之间存在相当大的差异。从这些结果可以推断:(a)“诊断过程”并不存在;(b)任何自动化诊断系统都必须灵活,以适应不同临床医生的需求;(c)基于人工临床情境的研究应极其谨慎地对待。