Can degrading information about patient symptoms in vignettes alter clinical reasoning in paramedics and paramedic students? An experimental application of fuzzy trace theory

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Toby Keene , Eryn Newman , Kristen Pammer
{"title":"Can degrading information about patient symptoms in vignettes alter clinical reasoning in paramedics and paramedic students? An experimental application of fuzzy trace theory","authors":"Toby Keene ,&nbsp;Eryn Newman ,&nbsp;Kristen Pammer","doi":"10.1016/j.auec.2023.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Research has shown paramedics form rapid intuitive impressions on first, meeting a patient and these impressions subsequently affected their clinical reasoning. We report an experiment where theory-based interventions are developed with the goal of reducing reliance on intuitive reasoning by paramedics and paramedic students in simulated patients.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Australian paramedics (n = 213; 49% female) and paramedicine students (n = 83; 55% female) attending paramedic conferences completed a 2 × 2 fully between participants experiment. They saw a written clinical vignette designed to be representative of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) in which key clinical information was precise or degraded (stimulus), they then either chose the single most likely diagnosis from a list, or ranked competing diagnoses (response). Outcome variables were diagnostic rate and response time.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were no differences in the proportion of participants choosing ACS across the four stimulus-response conditions (0.75 [0.65, 0.84] vs 0.79 [0.68, 0.87] vs, 0.78 [0.65, 0.87] vs 0.72 [0.59, 0.82], p = 0.42)</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This is the first study attempting to experimentally examine clinical reasoning in paramedics using a theory-based intervention. Neither of the interventions tested succeeded in altering measures of clinical reasoning. Similar to previous research on physicians, paramedic reasoning appears robust to manipulation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55979,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Emergency Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588994X23000076","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Research has shown paramedics form rapid intuitive impressions on first, meeting a patient and these impressions subsequently affected their clinical reasoning. We report an experiment where theory-based interventions are developed with the goal of reducing reliance on intuitive reasoning by paramedics and paramedic students in simulated patients.

Method

Australian paramedics (n = 213; 49% female) and paramedicine students (n = 83; 55% female) attending paramedic conferences completed a 2 × 2 fully between participants experiment. They saw a written clinical vignette designed to be representative of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) in which key clinical information was precise or degraded (stimulus), they then either chose the single most likely diagnosis from a list, or ranked competing diagnoses (response). Outcome variables were diagnostic rate and response time.

Results

There were no differences in the proportion of participants choosing ACS across the four stimulus-response conditions (0.75 [0.65, 0.84] vs 0.79 [0.68, 0.87] vs, 0.78 [0.65, 0.87] vs 0.72 [0.59, 0.82], p = 0.42)

Conclusion

This is the first study attempting to experimentally examine clinical reasoning in paramedics using a theory-based intervention. Neither of the interventions tested succeeded in altering measures of clinical reasoning. Similar to previous research on physicians, paramedic reasoning appears robust to manipulation.

小插曲中关于患者症状的有辱人格的信息会改变护理人员和护理学生的临床推理吗?模糊轨迹理论的实验应用。
背景:研究表明,医护人员在第一次见到病人时会形成快速的直觉印象,这些印象随后会影响他们的临床推理。我们报告了一项实验,在该实验中,开发了基于理论的干预措施,目的是减少护理人员和护理学生在模拟患者中对直觉推理的依赖。方法:参加护理人员会议的澳大利亚护理人员(n=213;49%为女性)和护理专业学生(n=83;55%为女性)完成了一项2×2的完全参与者间实验。他们看到了一份旨在代表急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的书面临床小插曲,其中关键的临床信息是精确的或退化的(刺激),然后他们要么从列表中选择最有可能的诊断,要么对竞争诊断进行排名(反应)。结果变量为诊断率和反应时间。结果:在四种刺激反应条件下,选择ACS的参与者比例没有差异(0.75[0.65,0.84]vs 0.79[0.68,0.87]vs 0.78[0.65,0.8 7]vs 0.72[0.59,0.82],p=0.42)结论:这是第一项尝试使用基于理论的干预对护理人员的临床推理进行实验性检验的研究。测试的两种干预措施都没有成功地改变临床推理的衡量标准。与之前对医生的研究类似,护理人员的推理似乎对操纵很有力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australasian Emergency Care
Australasian Emergency Care Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
82
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Australasian Emergency Care is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to supporting emergency nurses, physicians, paramedics and other professionals in advancing the science and practice of emergency care, wherever it is delivered. As the official journal of the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA), Australasian Emergency Care is a conduit for clinical, applied, and theoretical research and knowledge that advances the science and practice of emergency care in original, innovative and challenging ways. The journal serves as a leading voice for the emergency care community, reflecting its inter-professional diversity, and the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making to achieve quality patient outcomes. It is strongly focussed on advancing the patient experience and quality of care across the emergency care continuum, spanning the pre-hospital, hospital and post-hospital settings within Australasia and beyond.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信