Validity Evidence of A Screening Tool for Early Detection of Clinical Crisis-Related Anxiety Amongst Medical Students.

Construct: Psychological distress among students is a growing concern in medical education, even more so with the advent of COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety is among students' mental health issues. High and persistent anxiety has many negative impacts on students' academic and personal life. Early detection is essential for timely intervention. Background: Currently, medical student anxiety is assessed using tools primarily designed for psychiatric purposes. Despite their excellent validity evidence, these tools contain sensitive items and do not explore stressors related to clinical activities. There is a need for contextualized tools to better identify anxiety-provoking factors specific to the medical education environment. Approach: We previously developed the Crisis Experience Rating Scale (CERS-7), a short screening tool to identify early on anxious students participating in clinical activities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study sought to produce further validity evidence for the CERS-7. Medical students in their clinical years at two Swiss and one French medical school, all involved in COVID-19 clinical activity during the second wave of the pandemic, completed the CERS-7 and the State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-A), the best known and widely used tool to measure for general anxiety. We evaluated internal structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and relation to other variables using linear regression (LR) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with thresholds defined using the Youden index. Findings: There were 372 participants. CFA confirmed the two-factor structure of the CERS-7 scale from first-wave dataset. The CERS-7 total scale and subscales demonstrated validity evidence in relationship to the STAI-A scores and categories. A CERS-7 total scale score < 27.5 identified 93% of severely anxious students. Conclusion: The CERS-7 produces reliable scores to use for monitoring anxiety status when assigning students to clinical settings as well as for improving training conditions during clinical crisis.

Does burnout affect clinical reasoning? An observational study among residents in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Burnout results from excessive demands at work. Caregivers suffering from burnout show a state of emotional exhaustion, leading them to distance themselves from their patients and to become less efficient in their work. While some studies have shown a negative impact of burnout on physicians' clinical reasoning, others have failed to demonstrate any such impacts. To better understand the link between clinical reasoning and burnout, we carried out a study looking for an association between burnout and clinical reasoning in a population of general practice residents. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study among residents in general practice in 2017 and 2019. Clinical reasoning performance was assessed using a script concordance test (SCT). The Maslach Burnout Inventory for Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used to determine burnout status in both original standards of Maslach's burnout inventory manual (conventional approach) and when individuals reported high emotional exhaustion in combination with high depersonalization or low personal accomplishment compared to a norm group ("emotional exhaustion +1" approach). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-nine residents were included. The participants' mean SCT score was 76.44% (95% CI: 75.77-77.10). In the conventional approach, 126 residents (63.31%) had no burnout, 37 (18.59%) had mild burnout, 23 (11.56%) had moderate burnout, and 13 (6.53%) had severe burnout. In the "exhaustion + 1" approach, 38 residents had a burnout status (19.10%). We found no significant correlation between burnout status and SCT scores either for conventional or "exhaustion + 1" approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our data seem to indicate that burnout status has no significant impact on clinical reasoning. However, one speculation is that SCT mostly examines the clinical reasoning process's analytical dimension, whereas emotions are conventionally associated with the intuitive dimension. We think future research might aim to explore the impact of burnout on intuitive clinical reasoning processes.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included. RESULTS: Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Impact of emergency physician experience on decision-making in patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia and undergoing systematic thoracic CT scan.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the impact of a thoracic CT scan on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) diagnosis and patient management varies according to emergency physician's experience (≤10 vs >10 years). METHODS: Early thoracic CT Scan for Community-Acquired Pneumonia at the Emergency Department is an interventional study conducted from November 2011 to January 2013 in four French emergency departments, and included suspected patients with CAP. We analysed changes in emergency physician CAP diagnosis classification levels before and after CT scan; and their agreement with an adjudication committee. We performed univariate analysis to determine the factors associated with modifying the diagnosis classification level to be consistent with the radiologist's CT scan interpretation. RESULTS: 319 suspected patients with CAP and 136 emergency physicians (75% less experienced with ≤10 years, 25% with >10 years of experience) were included. The percentage of patients whose classification was modified to become consistent with CT scan radiologist's interpretation was higher among less-experienced than experienced emergency physicians (54.2% vs 40.2%; p=0.02). In univariate analysis, less emergency physician experience was the only factor associated with changing a classification to be consistent with the CT scan radiologist's interpretation (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.10, p=0.04). After CT scan, the agreement between emergency physicians and adjudication committee was moderate for less-experienced emergency physicians and slight for experienced emergency physicians (k=0.457 and k=0.196, respectively). After CT scan, less-experienced emergency physicians modified patient management significantly more than experienced emergency physicians (36.1% vs 21.7%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, less-experienced emergency physicians were more likely to accurately modify their CAP diagnosis and patient management based on thoracic CT scan than more experienced emergency physicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01574066.

Motivation in medical education.

Motivation is a concept which has fascinated researchers for many decades. The field of medical education has become interested in motivation recently, having always assumed that medical students must be motivated because of their commitment to highly specific training, leading to a very specific profession. However, motivation is a major determinant of the quality of learning and success, the lack of which may well explain why teachers sometimes observe medical students who are discouraged, have lost interest or abandon their studies, with a feeling of powerlessness or resignation. After describing the importance of motivation for learning in medicine, this Guide will define the concept of motivation, setting it within the context of a social cognitive approach. In the second part of this Guide, recommendations are made, based upon the so-called "motivational dynamic model", which provides a multitude of various strategies with positive effects on students' motivation to learn.

Does the unexpected death of the manikin in a simulation maintain the participants' perceived self-efficacy? An observational prospective study with medical students.

BACKGROUND: The death of a simulated patient is controversial. Some educators feel that having a manikin die is prejudicial to learning; others feel it is a way of better preparing students for these situations. Perceived self-efficacy (PSE) reflects a person's perception of their ability to carry out a task. A high PSE is necessary to manage a task efficiently. In this study, we measured the impact of the death of a simulated patient on medical students' perceived self-efficacy concerning their ability to cope with a situation of cardiac arrest. METHODS: We carried out a single-centre, observational, prospective study. In group 1 (n = 27), pre-graduate medical students were warned of the possible death of the manikin; group 2 students were not warned (n = 29). The students' PSE was measured at the end of the simulated situation and after the debriefing. RESULTS: The PSE of the two groups was similar before the debriefing (p = 0.41). It had significantly progressed at the end of the debriefing (p < 0,001). No significant difference was noted between the 2 groups (p = 0.382). CONCLUSIONS: The simulated death of the manikin did not have a negative impact on the students' PSE, whether or not they had been warned of the possible occurrence of such an event. Our study helps defend the position which supports the inclusion of unexpected death of the manikin in a simulation setting.

From Context Comes Expertise: How Do Expert Emergency Physicians Use Their Know-Who to Make Decisions?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Decisionmaking is influenced by the environment in which it takes place. The objective of our study was to explore the influence of the specific features of the emergency department (ED) environment on decisionmaking. In this paper, we specifically report on the way emergency physicians use their knowledge of their collaborators to make their decisions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study on emergency physicians recruited in 3 French hospitals. Physicians were equipped with a microcamera to record their clinical activity from their "own-point-of-view perspective." Semistructured interviews, based on viewing the video, were held with each physician after an actual clinical encounter with a patient. They were then analyzed thematically, using constant comparison and matrices, to identify the central themes. RESULTS: Fifteen expert emergency physicians were interviewed. Almost all of them reported using their knowledge of other health care professionals to assess the seriousness of the patient's overall condition (sometimes even before his or her arrival in the ED) to optimize the patient's treatment and to anticipate future care. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians interact with many other health care workers during the different stages of the patient's management. The many ways in which experts use their knowledge of other health care professionals to make decisions puts traditional conceptions of expert knowledge into perspective and opens avenues for future research.

How do general practice residents use social networking sites in asynchronous distance learning?

BACKGROUND: Blended learning environments - involving both face-to-face and remote interactions - make it easier to adapt learning programs to constraints such as residents' location and low teacher-student ratio. Social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook®, while not originally intended to be used as learning environments, may be adapted for the distance-learning part of training programs. The purpose of our study was to explore the use of SNS for asynchronous distance learning in a blended learning environment as well as its influence on learners' face-to-face interactions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study and carried out semi-structured interviews. We performed purposeful sampling for maximal variation to include eight general practice residents in 2(nd) and 3(rd) year training. A thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: The social integration of SNS facilitates the engagement of users in their learning tasks. This may also stimulate students' interactions and group cohesion when members meet up in person. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the general practice residents who work in the blended learning environment we studied had a positive appraisal on their use of SNS. In particular, we report a positive impact on their engagement in learning and their participation in discussions during face-to-face instruction. Further studies are needed in order to evaluate the effectiveness of SNS in blended learning environments and the appropriation of SNS by teachers.

How and when do expert emergency physicians generate and evaluate diagnostic hypotheses? A qualitative study using head-mounted video cued-recall interviews.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The ability to make a diagnosis is a crucial skill in emergency medicine. Little is known about the way emergency physicians reach a diagnosis. This study aims to identify how and when, during the initial patient examination, emergency physicians generate and evaluate diagnostic hypotheses. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative research project based on semistructured interviews with emergency physicians. The interviews concerned management of an emergency situation during routine medical practice. They were associated with viewing the video recording of emergency situations filmed in an "own-point-of-view" perspective. RESULTS: The emergency physicians generated an average of 5 diagnostic hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses were generated before meeting the patient or within the first 5 minutes of the meeting. The hypotheses were then rank ordered within the context of a verification procedure based on identifying key information. These tasks were usually accomplished without conscious effort. No hypothesis was completely confirmed or refuted until the results of investigations were available. CONCLUSION: The generation and rank ordering of diagnostic hypotheses is based on the activation of cognitive processes, enabling expert emergency physicians to process environmental information and link it to past experiences. The physicians seemed to strive to avoid the risk of error by remaining aware of the possibility of alternative hypotheses as long as they did not have the results of investigations. Understanding the diagnostic process used by emergency physicians provides interesting ideas for training residents in a specialty in which the prevalence of reasoning errors leading to incorrect diagnoses is high.

How emergency physicians use biomarkers: insights from a qualitative assessment of script concordance tests.

OBJECTIVES: Biomarkers have been developed in emergency medicine to improve decision at bedside using Bayesian approach. We intend to determine the cognitive process actually utilised by emergency physicians to incorporate biomarkers in clinical reasoning. DESIGN: We invited eight emergency physicians to answer eight script concordance tests. Interviews were tape-recorded and qualitatively analysed using predetermined categories until saturation. RESULTS: Emergency physicians mainly mobilised intuition and non-Bayesian reasoning to incorporate biomarkers for diagnosis or treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Although biomarkers have been developed to be used in a Bayesian approach, emergency physicians mainly use other analytical and non-analytical cognitive processes to introduce these tools in their clinical reasoning.

Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise.

RATIONALE: Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In the present paper, we take issue with these claims. METHOD: We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence. RESULTS: We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory-that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.

And if we had to do it all over again, would we send medical students to the emergency departments during a pandemic? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 outbreak.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased staffing needs in emergency departments. The question quickly arose as to whether it was appropriate to offer medical students the opportunity to assist this staff. The dilemma stems in part from the potential impact on their psychological well-being as well as their academic and clinical performances. We sought to determine the level of anxiety of medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak, and whether it was higher among the students who chose to return to the clinical setting, especially in first-line units (i.e., emergency departments and resuscitation units). In May 2020, 1180/1502 (78.5%) undergraduate medical students at Strasbourg Medical School (France) completed a questionnaire assessing their anxiety and clinical experience. A 2018 cohort of undergraduate medical students served as the baseline. The 2020 COVID cohort had higher rates of anxiety than the 2018 cohort. This difference was specifically observed in the students who chose not to return to the clinical setting during the crisis (N = 684, 59%). At linear regression, the main factors associated with anxiety were gender (p < 0.005) and perceived clinical activity personal conditions (p < 0.001). Employment site, including COVID first-line units, was not correlated with anxiety. Working in the clinical setting during the COVID-19 outbreak is not a risk factor for anxiety in medical students. Instead, it is an active coping strategy, suggesting that there are no barriers to allowing students to return to clinical settings during a pandemic, including first-line units, in terms of their psychological well-being.

A Didactic Escape Game for Emergency Medicine Aimed at Learning to Work as a Team and Making Diagnoses: Methodology for Game Development.

BACKGROUND: In the health care environment, teamwork is paramount, especially when referring to patient safety. We are interested in recent and innovative solutions such as escape games, which is a type of adventure game that may be highly useful as an educational tool, potentially combining good communication skills with successful gamification. They involve teams of 5 to 10 individuals who are "locked" in the same room and must collaborate to solve puzzles while under pressure from a timer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper was to describe the steps involved in creating and implementing an educational escape game. This tool can then be put into service or further developed by trainers who wish to use it for learning interprofessional collaboration. Therefore, we started with an experience of creating an educational escape game for emergency medicine teams. METHODS: We chose to develop an educational escape game by using 6 successive steps. First, we built a team. Second, we chose the pedagogical objectives. Third, we gamified (switched from objectives to scenario). Next, we found the human and material resources needed. Thereafter, we designed briefing and debriefing. Lastly, we tested the game. RESULTS: By following these 6 steps, we created the first ambulant educational escape game that teaches people, or nurses, doctors, and paramedics, working in emergency medicine to work as a team. CONCLUSIONS: From a pedagogic point of view, this game may be a good tool for helping people in multidisciplinary fields (medical and paramedical teams) to learn how to work collaboratively and to communicate as a group. Above all, it seems to be an innovative tool that complements medical simulation-based learning and thus consolidates traditional education.

Misdiagnosis and failure to diagnose in emergency care: Causes and empathy as a solution.

Diagnostic error is the most frequent cause of allegations of negligence in emergency care in the United States and is estimated to contribute to the death of hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide each year. In this special contribution, we elucidate the cognitive mechanisms that emergency physicians use to make decisions and identify how these mechanisms can become sources of diagnostic error. The discussion centers on the appraisal of proposed methods to reduce the risk of diagnostic error, including debiasing strategies and a brief discussion of the theoretical basis for interventions to improve clinician empathy.