Clinical Reasoning: A 60-Year-Old Woman With Rapidly Progressive Muscle Weakness and Ophthalmoparesis.

The clinical assessment of patients with proximal muscle weakness represents a frequent yet intricate challenge. We present the case of a 60-year-old woman who experienced a progressive, symmetrical weakness in proximal limbs and bulbar muscles over 6 months. Notable clinical findings included bilateral ophthalmoparesis; widespread muscle atrophy; and pronounced weakness in craniobulbar, cervical, and proximal muscles, more severe than in distal ones. We elucidate a methodical diagnostic approach, focusing on constructing a comprehensive differential diagnosis and identifying potential causes of proximal muscle weakness. Special emphasis is placed on exploring the etiologies in cases presenting with both progressive muscle weakness and ophthalmoparesis. We further describe the role of muscle biopsy results and their integration with genetic testing outcomes.

Teaching clinical reasoning: principles from the literature to help improve instruction from the classroom to the bedside.

Clinical reasoning has been characterized as being an essential aspect of being a physician. Despite this, clinical reasoning has a variety of definitions and medical error, which is often attributed to clinical reasoning, has been reported to be a leading cause of death in the United States and abroad. Further, instructors struggle with teaching this essential ability which often does not play a significant role in the curriculum. In this article, we begin with defining clinical reasoning and then discuss four principles from the literature as well as a variety of techniques for teaching these principles to help ground an instructors' understanding in clinical reasoning. We also tackle contemporary challenges in teaching clinical reasoning such as the integration of artificial intelligence and strategies to help with transitions in instruction (e.g., from the classroom to the clinic or from medical school to residency/registrar training) and suggest next steps for research and innovation in clinical reasoning.

Improving clinical reasoning and communication during handover: An intervention study of the BRIEF-C tool.

BACKGROUND: Existing handover communication tools often lack a clear theoretical foundation, have limited psychometric evidence, and overlook effective communication strategies for enhancing diagnostic reasoning. This oversight becomes critical as communication breakdowns during handovers have been implicated in poor patient care. To address these issues, we developed a structured communication tool: Background, Responsible diagnosis, Included differential diagnosis, Excluded differential diagnosis, Follow-up, and Communication (BRIEF-C). It is informed by cognitive bias theory, shows evidence of reliability and validity of its scores, and includes strategies for actively sending and receiving information in medical handovers. DESIGN: A pre-test post-test intervention study. SETTING: Inpatient internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery units at one tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTION: The BRIEF-C tool was presented to internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery faculty and residents who participated in an in-person educational session, followed by a 2-week period where they practised using it with feedback. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical handovers were audiorecorded over 1 week for the pre- and again for the post-periods, then transcribed for analysis. Two faculty raters from internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery scored the transcripts of handovers using the BRIEF-C framework. The two raters were blinded to the time periods. RESULTS: A principal component analysis identified two subscales on the BRIEF-C: diagnostic clinical reasoning and communication, with high interitem consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.82 and 0.99, respectively). One sample t-test indicated significant improvement in diagnostic clinical reasoning (pre-test: M=0.97, SD=0.50; post-test: M=1.31, SD=0.64; t(64)=4.26, p<0.05, medium to large Cohen's d=0.63) and communication (pre-test: M=0.02, SD=0.16; post-test: M=0.48, SD=0.83); t(64)=4.52, p<0.05, large Cohen's d=0.83). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates evidence supporting the reliability and validity of scores on the BRIEF-C as good indicators of diagnostic clinical reasoning and communication shared during handovers.

Investigating the clinical reasoning abilities of large language model GPT-4: an analysis of postoperative complications from renal surgeries.

PURPOSE: Large language models, a subset of artificial intelligence, have immense potential to support human tasks. The role of these models in science and medicine is unclear, requiring strong critical thinking and analysis skills. The objective of our study was to evaluate GPT-4's abilities to assess postoperative complications after renal surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Discharge summaries were compiled, and patient information was deidentified in a Python-based program. Prompts were engineered in GPT-4 to assess for the presence of postoperative complications. GPT-4 was further asked to interpret each complication's Clavien-Dindo classification and institutional-specific category. GPT-4's database was compared to a human-curated database. Discrepancies were manually reviewed to calculate match and accuracy rates. RESULTS: Approximately 944 renal surgeries were conducted from August 2005 to March 2022. There was a 79.6% match rate between GPT-4 and human-curated data in detecting postoperative complications. Accuracy rates were 86.7% for GPT-4 and 92.9% for human-curated. A subgroup of 139 patients had a complication detected by both GPT-4 and human with available Clavien-Dindo classification and category information. There was a 37.4% overall match rate for Clavien-Dindo grade and 55.4% match rate for category. CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 was able to accurately detect if there were any postoperative complications. It struggled with the complex task of further analyzing complications, especially with Clavien-Dindo classification, which requires more critical thinking and interpretation. While GPT-4 is not yet ready for advanced postoperative complication analysis, it can still be used to support clinicians in this endeavor.

Virtual patients versus standardized patients for improving clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology residents. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: History taking and clinical reasoning are important skills that require knowledge, cognition and meta-cognition. It is important that a trainee must experience multiple encounters with different patients to practice these skills. However, patient safety is also important, and trainees are not allowed to handle critically ill patients. To address this issue, a randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine the effectiveness of using Virtual Patients (VP) versus Standardized Patients (SP) in acquiring clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology postgraduate residents. METHODS: Postgraduate residents from two hospitals in Lahore, Pakistan, were randomized to either the VP group or the SP group and were exposed to clinical reasoning exercise via the VP or SP for 30 min after the pretest. This was followed by a posttest. One month after this activity, a follow-up posttest was conducted. The data were collected and analysed using IBM-SPSS version 25. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to track the effect of learning skills over time. RESULTS: The mean age of the residents was 28.5 ± 3 years. The male to female ratio was 1:1.1. For the SP group, the mean scores were 12.6 ± 3.08, 16.39 ± 3.01 and 15.39 ± 2.95, and for the VP group, the mean scores were 12.7 ± 3.84, 16.30 ± 3.19 and 15.65 ± 3.18 for the pretest, posttest and follow-up posttest, respectively (p value < 0.00). However, the difference between the VP and SP groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.896). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the VP and SP groups regarding the retention of clinical reasoning ability. In terms of learning gain, compared with the VP group, the SP group had a score of 51.46% immediately after clinical reasoning exercise as compared to VP group, in which it was 49.1%. After one month, it was 38.01 in SP and 40.12% in VP group. CONCLUSION: VPs can be used for learning clinical reasoning skills in postgraduate ophthalmology residents in a safe environment. These devices can be used repeatedly without any risk to the real patient. Although similarly useful, SP is limited by its nonavailability for repeated exercises.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a woman brought to a halt.

OBJECTIVES: Limitations in human cognition commonly result in clinical reasoning failures that can lead to diagnostic errors. A metacognitive structured reflection on what clinical findings fit and/or do not fit with a diagnosis, as well as how discordance of data can help advance the reasoning process, may reduce such errors. CASE PRESENTATION: A 60-year-old woman with Hashimoto thyroiditis, diabetes, and generalized anxiety disorder presented with diffuse arthralgias and myalgias. She had been evaluated by physicians of various specialties and undergone multiple modalities of imaging, as well as a electromyography/nerve conduction study (EMG/NCS), leading to diagnoses of fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral plexopathy. Despite treatment for these conditions, she experienced persistent functional decline. The only definitive alleviation of her symptoms identified was in the few days following intra-articular steroid injections for osteoarthritis. On presentation to our institution, she appeared fit with a normal BMI. She was a long-time athlete and had been training consistently until her symptoms began. Prediabetes had been diagnosed the year prior and her A1c progressed despite lifestyle modifications and 10 pounds of intentional weight loss. She reported fatigue, intermittent nausea without emesis, and reduced appetite. Examination revealed intact strength and range of motion in both the shoulders and hips, though testing elicited pain. She had symmetric hyperreflexia as well as a slowed, rigid gait. Autoantibody testing revealed strongly positive serum GAD-65 antibodies which were confirmed in the CSF. A diagnosis of stiff-person syndrome was made. She had an incomplete response to first-line therapy with high-dose benzodiazepines. IVIg was initiated with excellent response and symptom resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Through integrated commentary on the diagnostic reasoning process from clinical reasoning experts, this case underscores the importance of frequent assessment of fit along with explicit explanation of dissonant features in order to avoid misdiagnosis and halt diagnostic inertia. A fishbone diagram is provided to visually demonstrate the major factors that contributed to the diagnostic error. The case discussant demonstrates the power of iterative reasoning, case progression without commitment to a single diagnosis, and the dangers of both explicit and implicit bias. Finally, this case provides clinical teaching points in addition to a pitfall, myth, and pearl specific to overcoming diagnostic inertia.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: shoulder pain as the first and only manifestation of lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death and poses significant challenges in diagnosis and management. Although muscle metastases are exceedingly rare and typically not the initial clinical manifestation of neoplastic processes, their recognition is crucial for optimal patient care. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case report in which we identify the unique scenario of a 60-year-old man with shoulder pain and a deltoid muscle mass, initially suggestive of an undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. However, further investigations, including radiological findings and muscle biopsy, revealed an unexpected primary lung adenocarcinoma. We performed a systematic literature search to identify the incidence of SMM and reflect on how to improve and build on better diagnosis for entities as atypical as this. This atypical presentation highlights the importance of recognizing and addressing cognitive biases in clinical decision-making, as acknowledging the possibility of uncommon presentations is vital. By embracing a comprehensive approach that combines imaging studies with histopathological confirmation, healthcare providers can ensure accurate prognoses and appropriate management strategies, ultimately improving patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This case serves as a reminder of the need to remain vigilant, open-minded, and aware of cognitive biases when confronted with uncommon clinical presentations, emphasizing the significance of early recognition and prompt evaluation in achieving optimal patient care.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of tarsal tunnel syndrome caused by an intraneural ganglion cyst.

OBJECTIVES: Intraneural ganglionic cysts are non-neoplastic cysts that can cause signs and symptoms of peripheral neuropathy. However, the scarcity of such cases can lead to cognitive biases. Early surgical exploration of space occupying lesions plays an important role in identification and improving the outcomes for intraneural ganglionic cysts. CASE PRESENTATION: This patient presented with loss of sensation on the right sole with tingling numbness for six months. A diagnosis of tarsal tunnel syndrome was made. Nerve conduction study revealed that the mixed nerve action potential (NAP) was absent in the right medial and lateral plantar nerves. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) found a cystic lesion measuring 1.4×1.8×3.8 cm as the presumed cause of the neuropathy. Surgical exploration revealed a ganglionic cyst traversing towards the flexor retinaculum with baby cysts. The latter finding came as a surprise to the treating surgeon and was confirmed to be an intraneural ganglionic cyst based on the histopathology report. CONCLUSIONS: Through integrated commentary by a case discussant and reflection by an orthopedician, this case highlights the significance of the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and anchoring bias in a case of rare disease. Despite diagnostic delays, a medically knowledgeable patient's involvement in their own care lead to a more positive outcome. A fish-bone diagram is provided to visually demonstrate the major factors that contributed to the diagnostic delay. Finally, this case provides clinical teaching points in addition to a pitfall, myth, and pearl related to availability heuristic and the sunk cost fallacy.

Clinical Reasoning: A 30-Year-Old Woman Presenting With Rapidly Progressive Dementia and Extreme Hypoglycorrhachia.

A 30-year-old woman presented with rapidly progressive dementia 1 month after the coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Repeated CSF analysis showed extreme hypoglycorrhachia, while cultures, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, and cytopathology testing of CSF were negative. Laboratory investigations for possible etiologies revealed elevated blood ammonia and cancer antigen 125. Brain MRI demonstrated bilateral symmetric diffuse cortical lesions with mild hyperintensity on T1-weighted image and postcontrast enhancement. A more thorough history and specific examinations subsequently indicated an underlying etiology. This case provides an approach for evaluating young patients with rapidly progressive dementia, extreme hypoglycorrhachia, and diffuse CNS lesions, highlighting the importance of considering a broad differential diagnosis.

Assessing the clinical reasoning of ChatGPT for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with stroke.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a promising tool in medicine. ChatGPT, a large language model AI Chatbot, shows promise in supporting clinical practice. We assess the potential of ChatGPT as a clinical reasoning tool for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with stroke. METHODS: An internal validation of the abilities of ChatGPT was first performed using artificially created patient scenarios before assessment of real patient scenarios from the medical center's stroke database. All patients with large vessel occlusions who underwent mechanical thrombectomy at Tulane Medical Center between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022 were included in the study. The performance of ChatGPT in evaluating which patients should undergo mechanical thrombectomy was compared with the decisions made by board-certified stroke neurologists and neurointerventionalists. The interpretation skills, clinical reasoning, and accuracy of ChatGPT were analyzed. RESULTS: 102 patients with large vessel occlusions underwent mechanical thrombectomy. ChatGPT agreed with the physician's decision whether or not to pursue thrombectomy in 54.3% of the cases. ChatGPT had mistakes in 8.8% of the cases, consisting of mathematics, logic, and misinterpretation errors. In the internal validation phase, ChatGPT was able to provide nuanced clinical reasoning and was able to perform multi-step thinking, although with an increased rate of making mistakes. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT shows promise in clinical reasoning, including the ability to factor a patient's underlying comorbidities when considering mechanical thrombectomy. However, ChatGPT is prone to errors as well and should not be relied on as a sole decision-making tool in its present form, but it has potential to assist clinicians with more efficient work flow.

Psychometric evaluation of the Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Modified Brazilian Version / Evaluación psicométrica del instrumento Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Versión modificada para Brasil / Avaliação psicométrica do Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Versão Brasileira Modificada

Objective: to test the factorial structure, reliability and convergent validity of the Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Modified Brazilian Version. Method: this was a psychometric evaluation of the Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Modified Brazilian Version. Seven hundred and seventeen participants answered the data collection instrument consisting of two parts. Part I included a structured questionnaire to collect sociodemographic data and the participants' perceptions and satisfaction with their current health status. Part II consisted of the tool being tested. The internal structure was assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Convergent validity was evaluated by the correlation of the tool scores with the rates corresponding to self-perception and satisfaction with current health status. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Results: the Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed a three-factor solution. The factor loadings were significant and varied from 0.16 to 0.75; the fit indices suggested moderate fit of the model. Internal consistency for all three components varied between 0.779 and 0.919. Conclusion: the findings suggest that the tool is valid and reliable to be used in the Brazilian population, although caution is recommended when interpreting the results due to the moderate fit of the model.

Objetivo: someter a prueba la estructura factorial, confiabilidad y validez convergente del instrumento Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Versión modificada para Brasil. Método: evaluación psicométrica del instrumento Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Versión modificada para Brasil. Setecientos diecisiete participantes respondieron el instrumento de recolección de datos, compuesto por dos partes. La Parte I incluyó un cuestionario estructurado para recopilar datos sociodemográficos y las percepciones y el nivel de satisfacción de los participantes con respecto a su estado de salud actual. La Parte II consistió en la herramienta sometida a prueba. La estructura interna se evaluó empleando Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio. La validez interna se evaluó por medio de la correlación entre las puntuaciones obtenidas en la herramienta y los índices correspondientes a los niveles de autopercepción y satisfacción con respecto al estado de salud actual. La confiabilidad se evaluó utilizando el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Resultados: el Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio confirmó una solución con tres factores. Las cargas factoriales fueron significativas y variaron entre 0,16 y 0.75; los índices de ajuste sugirieron ajuste moderado del modelo. La consistencia interna correspondiente a los tres componentes varió entre 0,779 y 0,919. Conclusión: los hallazgos sugieren que la herramienta es válida y confiable para ser usada en la población de Brasil, aunque se recomienda interpretar los resultados con precaución debido al moderado ajuste del modelo.

Objetivo: testar a estrutura fatorial, a confiabilidade e a validade convergente do Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Versão Brasileira Modificada. Método: avaliação psicométrica do Functional Health Pattern Assessment Screening Tool - Versão Brasileira Modificada. Setecentos e dezessete participantes responderam os itens do instrumento de coleta de dados composto por duas partes. A Parte I incluiu um questionário estruturado contendo dados sociodemográficos e a percepção e satisfação dos participantes com seu estado de saúde atual. A Parte II consistiu no instrumento testado. A estrutura interna foi avaliada por meio de Análise Fatorial Confirmatória. A validade convergente foi avaliada pela correlação dos escores do instrumento com os índices correspondentes à autopercepção e à satisfação com o estado de saúde atual. A confiabilidade foi avaliada pelo alfa de Cronbach. Resultados: a Análise Fatorial Confirmatória confirmou uma solução de três fatores. As cargas fatoriais foram significativas e variaram de 0,16 a 0,75; os índices de ajuste sugeriram ajuste moderado do modelo. A consistência interna dos três componentes variou entre 0,779 e 0,919. Conclusión: os achados sugerem que o instrumento é válido e confiável para ser utilizado na população brasileira, embora seja recomendada cautela na interpretação dos resultados devido ao ajuste moderado do modelo.

Raciocínio clínico e protocolos: a visão da equipe de fonoaudiologia na introdução via oral de neonatos de uma unidade neonatal / Clinical reasoning and protocols: the vision of the speech therapy team in the oral introduction of neonates in a neonatal unit / Razonamiento clínico y protocolos: la visión del equipo de fonoaudiología en la introducción oral de neonatos en una unidad neonatal

Introdução: O momento para introdução de alimentação via oral plena em neonatos é desafiador. Protocolos auxiliam nesse processo utilizando majoritariamente avaliações subjetivas, porém, estudos apontam a importância de incluir critérios objetivos. Objetivo: Analisar a visão da equipe de Fonoaudiologia sobre utilização de protocolos e construção de raciocínio clínico na introdução via oral em uma unidade neonatal. Método: Pesquisa qualitativa, analítica, exploratória. Coleta de dados por meio de grupos focais e por questionário de perfil sociodemográfico e técnico-científico dos participantes. Resultados: Participaram três preceptoras e três residentes entre 25 e 39 anos, de diferentes etnias, formadas entre um e 16 anos, de dois a 12 anos atuando em Neonatologia. Possuem aprimoramentos, cursos e três realizaram especialização. Emergiram dos grupos focais cinco categorias de análise: formação especializada como reflexo das necessidades de saúde da população; processo de construção da competência para assistência em neonatologia baseado nas diretrizes da Iniciativa Hospital Amigo da Criança; alinhamento das condutas da equipe e melhor acompanhamento da evolução dos casos; dificuldade na aplicação do protocolo no processo de trabalho; e, sugestões de incrementos ao protocolo baseados em diretrizes institucionais. Conclusão: A equipe utiliza protocolo institucional embasado na literatura, ao qual se sugere adicionar critérios objetivos para melhores resultados assistenciais e aprimorar o processo de ensino- aprendizagem das residentes. (AU)

Introduction: Identifying the moment to introduce full oral administration in neonates is challenging. Protocols assist in this process using mostly subjective assessments; however, studies demonstrate the importance of including objective criteria. Objective: To analyze the view of the Speech Therapy team on the use of protocols and construction of clinical reasoning in oral introduction in a neonatal unit. Method: Qualitative, analytical, exploratory research. Data collection through focus groups and a socio-demographic and technical-scientific profile questionnaire of the participants. Results: Three preceptors and three residents between 25 and 39 years old, of different ethnicities, graduated between one and 16 years, from two to 12 years working in Neonatology, participated. They have improvements, courses and three completed postgraduate studies. Five categories of analysis emerged from the focus groups: specialized training as a reflection of the population's health needs; competence building process for assistance in neonatology based on the guidelines of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative; alignment of the team's conduct and better monitoring of the evolution of cases; difficulty in applying the protocol in the work process; and suggestions for increments to the protocol based on institutional guidelines. Conclusion: The team uses an institutional protocol based on the literature. It is suggested to add objective criteria for better results, helping residents to learn. (AU)

Introducción: el momento de introducir la administración oral completa en neonatos es un desafío. Los protocolos ayudan en este proceso utilizando evaluaciones mayoritariamente subjetivas, sin embargo, los estudios señalan la importancia de incluir criterios objetivos. Objetivo: Analizar la visión del equipo de Fonoaudiología sobre el uso de protocolos y construcción del razonamiento clínico en la introducción oral en una unidad neonatal. Método: Investigación cualitativa, analítica, exploratoria. Recopilación de datos a través de grupos focales y cuestionario de perfil sociodemográfico y técnico-científico de los participantes. Resultados: Participaron tres preceptores y tres residentes entre 25 y 39 años, de diferentes etnias, egresados entre uno y 16 años, de dos a 12 años trabajando en Neonatología. Cuentan con mejoras, cursos y tres estudios de posgrado terminados. De los grupos focales surgieron cinco categorías de análisis: la formación especializada como reflejo de las necesidades de salud de la población; proceso de construcción de competencias para la asistencia en neonatología a partir de los lineamientos de la Iniciativa Hospital Amigo del Ninõ; alineación de la conducta del equipo y mejor seguimiento de la evolución de los casos; dificultad en la aplicación del protocolo en el proceso de trabajo; y, sugerencias para incrementos al protocolo basados en lineamientos institucionales. Conclusión: : El equipo utiliza un protocolo institucional basado en la literatura, al que se sugiere agregar criterios objetivos para mejores resultados de atención y mejorar el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de los residentes. (AU)

Clinical Reasoning: A 22-Year-Old Man With Multifocal Brain and Osseous Lesions.

The evaluation of patients with disseminated processes with CNS and osseous involvement is often challenging. A 22-year-old healthy man developed left-sided weakness, paresthesias, and neck pain over several weeks. On clinical examination, he was noted to have decreased right eye visual acuity, left-sided pyramidal weakness and numbness, and bilateral hyperreflexia. MRI revealed multifocal widespread abnormalities: nonenhancing lesions throughout the infratentorial brain, pituitary gland, right frontal lobe, and optic nerves, in addition to an enhancing intramedullary cervical spinal cord lesion, extensive nodular leptomeningeal enhancement of the spine, and numerous enhancing bony lesions throughout the vertebrae and iliac bones. CSF analysis was notable for normal opening pressure, protein 465 mg/dL, glucose 21 mg/dL, and normal cell count. Extensive serum and CSF analysis for infectious, inflammatory, and neoplastic etiologies was unrevealing, and the diagnosis was ultimately revealed after additional staining of tissue biopsy specimen from sacral and cerebellar biopsies. This case highlights the differential diagnoses for widely disseminated disease affecting the CNS and bones and informs pediatric and adult clinicians of important recent developments regarding this diagnostic entity.

Razonamiento clínico y estilo de pensamiento en estudiantes de enfermería / Raciocínio clínico e estilo de pensamento em estudantes de enfermagem / Clinical reasoning and thinking style in nursing students

Introducción El razonamiento clínico es una habilidad que engloba el pensamiento para la toma de decisiones, sin embargo, los factores que favorecen su desarrollo no han sido ampliamente explorados. Se ha descrito que los estilos de pensamiento varían en función del aumento del conocimiento, por lo que es relevante conocer la relación entre ambos para entender mejor el proceso de aprendizaje en enfermería. El objetivo fue analizar la relación entre estilo de pensamiento y nivel de razonamiento clínico en estudiantes de licenciatura en enfermería. Metodología Se realizó un estudio cuantitativo, correlacional, prospectivo. Participaron 126 alumnos del último año de la licenciatura en enfermería, el muestreo fue no probabilístico. Se aplicaron dos instrumentos: "Identificación de estilos de pensamiento" con análisis de los estilos de pensamiento: Monárquico, Jerárquico, Anárquico y Oligárquico, y el de "Habilidades de razonamiento clínico" con la identificación de tres niveles: Bajo, Medio y Alto. Resultados En el 75% predomina el estilo de pensamiento Jerárquico, 65% tuvo un nivel medio de razonamiento clínico. La relación entre ambas variables tuvo un valor de p= 0.026 lo cual indica que existe una diferencia significativa. Discusión y conclusiones De acuerdo con lo encontrado, predomina el estilo de pensamiento jerárquico conforme transcurre la educación universitaria, lo que favorece que el razonamiento clínico se base en lo aprendido dentro de la institución educativa. No existen estudios previos que engloben ambas variables, por lo que se sugiere continuar con el estudio de este binomio, incluyendo estudiantes de diversos semestres de la licenciatura.

Introduction Clinical reasoning is a skill that encompasses decision-making thinking; however, the factors that favor its development have not been widely explored. It has been described that thinking styles vary according to the increase in knowledge, so it is relevant to know the relationship between both in order to better understand the learning process in nursing. The objective was to analyze the relationship between thinking style and level of clinical reasoning in undergraduate nursing students. Methodology A quantitative, correlational, prospective study was conducted. A total of 126 final year nursing students participated in the study, the sampling was non-probabilistic. Two instruments were applied: "Identification of thinking styles" with analysis of thinking styles: Monarchical, Hierarchical, Anarchical and Oligarchical, and "Clinical reasoning skills" with the identification of three levels: Low, Medium and High. Results In 75% the Hierarchical thinking style predominates, 65% had a medium level of clinical reasoning. The relationship between both variables had a value of p= 0.026 which indicates that there is a significant difference. Discussion and conclusions According to the findings, the hierarchical style of thinking predominates as university education progresses, which favors clinical reasoning based on what has been learned within the educational institution. There are no previous studies that include both variables, so it is suggested to continue with the study of this binomial, including students from different semesters of the bachelor's degree.

Introdução O raciocínio clínico é uma competência que engloba o pensamento para a tomada de decisão, no entanto, os factores que favorecem o seu desenvolvimento não têm sido amplamente explorados. Tem sido descrito que os estilos de pensamento variam de acordo com o aumento do conhecimento, pelo que é relevante conhecer a relação entre ambos para melhor compreender o processo de aprendizagem em enfermagem. O objetivo foi analisar a relação entre o estilo de pensamento e o nível de raciocínio clínico em estudantes de licenciatura em enfermagem. Metodologia Foi realizado um estudo prospetivo, quantitativo, correlacional e prospetivo. Participaram no estudo 126 estudantes finalistas de enfermagem, com amostragem não probabilística. Foram aplicados dois instrumentos: "Identificação dos estilos de pensamento" com análise dos estilos de pensamento: Monárquico, Hierárquico, Anárquico e Oligárquico, e "Competências de raciocínio clínico" com a identificação de três níveis: Baixo, Médio e Alto. Resultados Em 75% predomina o estilo de pensamento Hierárquico, 65% tem um nível médio de raciocínio clínico. A relação entre ambas as variáveis teve um valor de p= 0,026 o que indica que existe uma diferença significativa. Discussão e conclusões De acordo com os resultados obtidos, o estilo de pensamento hierárquico predomina à medida que se avança na formação universitária, o que favorece o raciocínio clínico baseado no que foi aprendido dentro da instituição de ensino. Não existem estudos anteriores que incluam ambas as variáveis, pelo que se sugere a continuação do estudo deste binómio, incluindo estudantes de diferentes semestres da licenciatura.

The iceberg of genomics: New perspectives in the use of genomics and epigenetics in oncology nursing clinical reasoning. A discursive paper.

BACKGROUND: Although, there is a wealth of information in the medical literature on the usefulness of genomic testing in assessing risk and its application in medical oncology decision making, there are no theoretical reflections in the nursing field. AIM: To understand the implications of molecular biology in nursing practice and highlight the role of Nursing Theory in guiding nurses' reasoning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searching literature published between 2000 and 2022 in Medline and Google Scholar. Scientific evidence was analysed by the authors expert in different fields. RESULTS: Based on the findings of the literature, concerns have been raised about the proper care of cancer patients who have a genomic risk profile determination. In particular, the absence of theoretical thinking and conceptual models that consider developments in molecular biology and their impact on nursing, in addition to the prevalence of heuristic thinking and the application of clinical patterns in nursing practice, could induce patient misjudgement with inadequate planning of preventive, curative, rehabilitative and educational nursing interventions. Nurses working in the field of oncology should be aware that the risk profile determined by genomics tests is merely the visible and stated portion of the cancer patient: the tip of iceberg. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates how genomic testing takes into account a fraction of genes discovered in tumour tissue to establish a risk profile. This subset differs, for example, from the social genome, which can determine the risk of dementia, cancer and cardiovascular disease, but in response to social adversity. Nursing theory, which views the environment as a metaparadigm, must consider a conceptual model that can integrate the findings of genomic testing with recommendations from studies on the social genome of humans to make it easier to build nursing treatments that can better reduce these risks. CONCLUSION: A nursing theoretical discourse on genomics is a paramount requirement for developing effective nursing care.

Understanding categories or subgroups and a common clinical reasoning error: the example of aneurysm size and neck width.

BACKGROUND: Individualized clinical decisions are often made by considering some patient or lesion characteristics that are thought to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of treatment. For example, aneurysm size and neck width have often been determinants of treatment choices in neurovascular practice. METHODS: We review observational and randomized data on the influence of aneurysm or neck size on angiographic results of coiling, stent-assisted coiling, or surgical clipping. New RCT data are used to demonstrate the shortcomings of managing patients using clinical judgment regarding patient or lesion characteristics. We discuss why clinical decisions should not be based on comparisons of different patients treated by the same treatment. Clinical decision making requires a comparison between the same patients treated with different treatments in a randomized trial. RESULTS: The results of endovascular treatment of large or wide-necked aneurysms are always inferior to those of small or narrow-necked aneurysms, in observational as well as in randomized studies. However, this fact alone is not sufficient to infer that patients with small aneurysms should be coiled, while those with large aneurysms should be managed with stenting or surgical clipping. The purported superiority of clipping for large aneurysms could not be demonstrated in recent RCTs (while surgery was found superior for small aneurysms). Similarly, the superiority of stent-assisted coiling for wide-necked aneurysms was not shown in another recent RCT. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience and observational studies alone can mislead practice. Proper clinical decisions for individuals requires randomized evidence.

Rejection! Or is it? Correlation among molecular microscope diagnostic system, histopathology and clinical judgement following heart transplantation.

PURPOSE: Little is known about clinical decision making among discordant findings concerning for rejection with endomyocardial biopsy (EMBx) and Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System (MMDx) in patients following heart transplantation. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-eight corresponding EMBx and MMDx specimens from 135 adult heart transplant patients were retrospectively reviewed. Rejection was classified as t-cell mediated rejection ≥2R and/or antibody mediated rejection ≥1. Clinical decision making among concordant and discordant cases of EMBx and MMDx results were reviewed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were comparable between concordant and discordant patient groups (median age 60 yrs., 76% male, and 71% White). A total of 167/228 specimens (73%) were concordant for no rejection with 98% agreement in clinical decision making and 25/228 (11%) concordant for rejection with 64% agreement in clinical decision making. Among the 36/228 (16%) discordant samples, clinical decision-making agreed on treatment for rejection in five of the MMDx samples and three of the EMBx samples. CONCLUSIONS: MMDx can be an additional tool to diagnose rejection not detected by the traditional EMBx and influence clinical decision making in guiding appropriate treatment. Ongoing investigation into the clinical utility of MMDx is warranted to determine the significance of discordant findings among diagnostic modalities when assessing for rejection.

Cognitive biases in internal medicine: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Medical errors account for up to 440,000 deaths annually, and cognitive errors outpace knowledge deficits as causes of error. Cognitive biases are predispositions to respond in predictable ways, and they don't always result in error. We conducted a scoping review exploring which biases are most prevalent in Internal Medicine (IM), if and how they influence patient outcomes, and what, if any, debiasing strategies are effective. CONTENT: We searched PubMed, OVID, ERIC, SCOPUS, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. Search terms included variations of "bias", "clinical reasoning", and IM subspecialties. Inclusion criteria were: discussing bias, clinical reasoning, and physician participants. SUMMARY: Fifteen of 334 identified papers were included. Two papers looked beyond general IM: one each in Infectious Diseases and Critical Care. Nine papers distinguished bias from error, whereas four referenced error in their definition of bias. The most commonly studied outcomes were diagnosis, treatment, and physician impact in 47 % (7), 33 % (5), and 27 % (4) of studies, respectively. Three studies directly assessed patient outcomes. The most commonly cited biases were availability bias (60 %, 9), confirmation bias (40 %, 6), anchoring (40 %, 6), and premature closure (33 %, 5). Proposed contributing features were years of practice, stressors, and practice setting. One study found that years of practice negatively correlated with susceptibility to bias. Ten studies discussed debiasing; all reported weak or equivocal efficacy. OUTLOOK: We found 41 biases in IM and 22 features that may predispose physicians to bias. We found little evidence directly linking biases to error, which could account for the weak evidence of bias countermeasure efficacy. Future study clearly delineating bias from error and directly assessing clinical outcomes would be insightful.

Clinical decision-making in older patients with cancer: a cross-sectional single-centre study to assess the impact of clinical judgement and patient preferences.

OBJECTIVE: The heterogeneity in the population of older patients with cancer makes clinical decision-making difficult. We investigated the agreement between the G8 score and clinical judgment in frailty assessments, determined the impact of a life-expectancy calculator, and explored patient and caregiver preferences towards the treatment goal. METHODS: Patients aged ≥75 years in need of new oncological treatment were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and February 2021. Frailty was estimated by the oncologist and caregiver and compared to the G8 estimation. We examined whether the oncologist changed the fit/frail estimation based on life expectancy calculated using the ePrognosis tool. The main treatment goals, either longevity or quality of life (QoL), from the patient's and caregiver's perspective were noted and compared. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included in the analysis. Comparison of the oncologist's and the caregiver's frailty estimation with the G8 assessment showed agreement and a Kappa coefficient of 58.3% (0.231) and 60% (0.255), respectively. The ePrognosis score and the odds of change in the frailty estimation by the oncologist showed no correlation. Regarding preferences, 28 (57.1%) and 17 (34.7%) patients and eighteen (47.3%) and seventeen (44.7%) caregivers chose longevity and QoL, respectively. The observed agreement and Kappa coefficient were 78.8% and 0.578. CONCLUSION: Compared to the G8 assessment, frailty was underestimated by both oncologists and caregivers. Most of the patients chose longevity over QoL, and the preferences between the patient and the caregiver matched in the majority of cases.