The provision of diagnosis at emergency department discharge: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding the cause of patients' symptoms usually involves identification of a pathological diagnosis. Anecdotal reports suggest that emergency department (ED) providers do not prioritise giving pathological diagnoses, and often reiterate the patient's symptom as the discharge 'diagnosis'. Our pilot study sought to identify the proportion of patients at a large teaching hospital who receive a symptomatic versus pathological diagnosis at ED discharge. METHODS: We performed a chart review of all adult patients who were discharged from an urban ED in the USA, with an 88,000 annual visit volume. All charts of patients presenting with the three most common ED chief complaints (chest pain, abdominal pain and headache) were reviewed by two reviewers. Charts were coded as either symptomatic or pathological diagnosis based on the discharge diagnosis provided by the attending physician. Those with discrepant coding by the two reviewers were subject to review by a third adjudicator. RESULTS: 797 charts met the inclusion criteria. Five charts (0.6%) were coded differently by the two reviewers; a discussion with the third reviewer resulted in consensus in all cases. For patients presenting with chest pain, abdominal pain and headache, the proportion that received a pathological ED discharge diagnosis were 17%, 43% and 41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to our pilot study, most patients are discharged from the ED without a pathological diagnosis that explains the likely cause of their symptoms. Future studies will investigate whether this finding is consistent across institutions, and whether provision of a pathological diagnosis affects clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Using medical students to enhance curricular integration of cross-cultural content.

We hypothesized that an interested medical student group would be helpful in reviewing tutorial cases and giving relevant feedback on the curricular integration of cross-cultural content using case triggers in a preclinical gastrointestinal pathophysiology course. Self-selected student leaders (n = 9) reviewed pre-existing problem-based learning tutorial cases (n = 3) with cross-cultural triggers, and provided narrative feedback to course faculty. The cases were modified and used for the entire class in the following 2 years. Participating course students' comments and teaching faculty feedback were also noted. Outcomes were a change in case content, student global evaluations of the course, and self-reported faculty comfort with teaching the cases. All three tutorial cases were reviewed by a separate group of 2-3 students. Major and minor revisions were made to each case based on the student feedback. These cases were used in 2007 and 2008 and were the major change to the course during that time. Overall course evaluation scores improved significantly from 2006 to 2008 (p = 0.000). Tutors (n = 22 in 2007; n = 23 in 2008) expressed relief during tutor meetings that students had reviewed the cases. A general framework for eliciting student feedback on problem-based cases was developed. Student feedback, consisting of self-selected students' case reviews and solicited course and tutor comments, added value to a curricular reform to improve the integration of cross-cultural content into a problem-based learning curriculum. Our study underscores the fundamental link between teachers and students as partners in curricular development.