Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Clinical Reasoning in the Real World Is Mediated by Bounded Rationality: Implications for Diagnostic Clinical Practice Guidelines
28
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2010
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the reasoning mechanisms used by physicians in decision-making and how this compares to diagnostic clinical practice guidelines. We explored the clinical reasoning process in a real life environment. METHOD: This is a qualitative study evaluating transcriptions of sixteen physicians' reasoning during appointments with patients, clinical discussions between specialists, and personal interviews with physicians affiliated to a hospital in Brazil. RESULTS: FOUR MAIN THEMES WERE IDENTIFIED: simple and robust heuristics, extensive use of social environment rationality, attempts to prove diagnostic and therapeutic hypothesis while refuting potential contradictions using positive test strategy, and reaching the saturation point. Physicians constantly attempted to prove their initial hypothesis while trying to refute any contradictions. While social environment rationality was the main factor in the determination of all steps of the clinical reasoning process, factors such as referral letters and number of contradictions associated with the initial hypothesis had influence on physicians' confidence and determination of the threshold to reach a final decision. DISCUSSION: Physicians rely on simple heuristics associated with environmental factors. This model allows for robustness, simplicity, and cognitive energy saving. Since this model does not fit into current diagnostic clinical practice guidelines, we make some propositions to help its integration.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note
1997 · 14.695 Zit.
Making sense of Cronbach's alpha
2011 · 14.046 Zit.
QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
2011 · 13.793 Zit.
A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions
1981 · 11.542 Zit.
Clarifying Confusion: The Confusion Assessment Method
1990 · 5.251 Zit.