Proceso de Bolonia (VI): aprendiendo comunicación para la salud en el Grado de Medicina / Bologna Process (VI): learning health communication in medical undergraduate

La comunicación forma parte de la actividad clínica y en ocasiones determina el éxito o fracaso del proceso asistencial. Sin embargo, no ha sido reconocida en los planes de estudio del Estado español hasta muy recientemente, sobre todo con el impulso del llamado 'Plan Bolonia'. En el año 2009 se aprobó en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universitat de Barcelona un nuevo plan docente que proponía incorporar la enseñanza de la comunicación en las materias clínicas y preclínicas, contabilizando entre 3 y 6 créditos europeos (ECTS), como competencia transversal. El presente artículo aborda el diseño de esta competencia, los pros y contras, cómo se inserta en diferentes asignaturas y cómo puede evaluarse (AU)

Communication is part of the clinical activity and sometimes determines the healthcare success or failure. However it has not been recognized in the Spanish curricula until recently, in the context of the so called Plan Bologna. In 2009 a new teaching plan was approved at Medical School of Barcelona University which intended to incorporate communication in clinical and preclinical areas (3-6 ECTS). In this article we explain pros and cons to introduce communication not as a subject, but as a competency, how can be integrated in different subjects and how can be evaluated (AU)

Seguridad clínica en atención primaria. los errores médicos (II) / Clinical safety in primary care: medical errors (II)

El primer artículo de esta serie sobre seguridad clínica lo dedicamos a la epidemiología y a las políticas preventivas de tipo sistémico. En la presente revisión nos centraremos en los errores médicos con especial énfasis en los errores de tipo diagnóstico. Estos errores derivan de las características a veces elusivas de la propia enfermedad, las circunstancias en que el paciente presenta sus síntomas, y las características del propio profesional. Si consideráramos al clínico como una «máquina de diagnóstico» -paradigma del «médico-robot»-, nos sería más fácil admitir unas limitaciones cognitivas, y poner en marcha estrategias institucionales que humanizarían el trato que en ocasiones recibe. De manera más concreta examinaremos 3 estrategias de mejora del razonamiento clínico: reconocimiento de situaciones peligrosas, metacognición y supervisor interno(AU)

The first article of this series on Clinical Safety was dedicated to the epidemiology and systemic preventive policies. In the present review we focus on medical errors with special emphasis on diagnostic type errors. These errors sometimes arise from the elusive characteristics of the disease itself, the way in which the patients present their symptoms, and the characteristics of the professionals themselves. If we consider a general practitioner as a diagnostic machine, -paradigm of "physician as a robot"- it would be easier for us to accept some cognitive limitations and introduce institutional strategies that would humanise the treatment occasionally received. More specifically we will examine three strategies for improving clinical reasoning: recognising dangerous situations, metacognition, and an internal supervisor(AU)

Seguridad clínica en atención primaria. El enfoque sistémico (I) / Clinical safety in primary care. The systemic approach (I)

La presente colaboración se compone de dos artículos. En el primero analizaremos la seguridad clínica desde la perspectiva sistémica. En el segundo nos centraremos en los errores propiamente médicos, con atención particular al error diagnóstico. Los estudios epidemiológicos se basan en auditorias de documentación clínica, informes de eventos adversos, pacientes estandarizados -que a su vez pueden adoptar la metodología de «pacientes incógnito»- y observación directa del acto clínico. A partir del estudio APEAS y ENEAS se han puesto en marcha iniciativas institucionales para crear entornos organizativos más seguros, con énfasis en la seguridad de las prescripciones. Examinaremos estas iniciativas con especial interés en las estrategias que se apoyan en la historia clínica electrónica, y que son capaces de mejorar el acto clínico en el mismo instante en que se produce(AU)

This collaborative work is consists of two articles. In the first we will analyse Clinical Safety from a systemic perspective. In the second, we will focus on specific medical errors, with particular attention to the diagnostic error. Epidemiological studies are based on clinical document audits, adverse event reports, standardised patients - who in turn may adopt the methodology of "unknown patients"- and direct observation of the clinical act. Institutional initiatives have been introduced from the APEAS and ENEAS studies, to create safer organisational environments, with emphasis on prescription safety. We examine these initiatives, taking particular interest in the strategies that are supported in the Electronic Medical Record, and which are able to improve the clinical act at the same time in which it occurs(AU)

[Clinical safety in primary care: medical errors (II)]. / Seguridad clínica en atención primaria. los errores médicos (II).

The first article of this series on Clinical Safety was dedicated to the epidemiology and systemic preventive policies. In the present review we focus on medical errors with special emphasis on diagnostic type errors. These errors sometimes arise from the elusive characteristics of the disease itself, the way in which the patients present their symptoms, and the characteristics of the professionals themselves. If we consider a general practitioner as a diagnostic machine, --paradigm of "physician as a robot"-- it would be easier for us to accept some cognitive limitations and introduce institutional strategies that would humanise the treatment occasionally received. More specifically we will examine three strategies for improving clinical reasoning: recognising dangerous situations, metacognition, and an internal supervisor.

[Clinical safety in primary care. The systemic approach (I)]. / Seguridad clínica en atención primaria. El enfoque sistémico (I).

This collaborative work is consists of two articles. In the first we will analyse Clinical Safety from a systemic perspective. In the second, we will focus on specific medical errors, with particular attention to the diagnostic error. Epidemiological studies are based on clinical document audits, adverse event reports, standardised patients-who in turn may adopt the methodology of "unknown patients"-and direct observation of the clinical act. Institutional initiatives have been introduced from the APEAS and ENEAS studies, to create safer organisational environments, with emphasis on prescription safety. We examine these initiatives, taking particular interest in the strategies that are supported in the Electronic Medical Record, and which are able to improve the clinical act at the same time in which it occurs.

Seguridad clínica. Previsión de esfuerzo / Clinical security. Forecast of effort

No disponible

Profesionalidad y professionalism: fundamentos, contenidos, praxis y docencia / Professionality and professionalism: basis, contents, praxis and teaching

No disponible

[Clinical error and adverse events: Primary care doctors perception]. / Errores clínicos y eventos adversos: percepción de los médicos de atención primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how primary care physicians perceive and face clinical errors (CE) and/or adverse events (AE). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study (personal mail survey). SETTING. Primary care physicians from "Ambit Costa de Ponent." PARTICIPANTS: All doctors with tenure from this area (717). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Standardized questionnaire with error and adverse event frequencies. We compared answers considering age, gender, family medicine residency, "deniers" (never make a mistake), "perceptive" (admitting a mistake in the last year), "hyper-perceptive" (28 or more errors/adverse events a year), "internal locus of control" (admitting personal reasons in errors), and "hypersecure" (>7 points out of 10 in clinical security on Likert scale). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty eight physicians (33.2%) with an average age of 42.6 (95% CI, 41.6-43.6) replied. The 28% were "deniers" (95% CI, 22.34-34.26), 67% "perceptive" (95% CI, 60.79-73.23), 7.4% "hyperperceptive" (95% CI, 4.41-11.44), 6% had "internal locus of control" (95% CI, 3.34-9.91), and 23.4% were "hypersecure" (95% CI, 18.14-29.22). Every doctor had on average 10.6 adverse events yearly, mainly drug side-effects (37%) (95% CI, 35.36-39.15), and diagnostic delay in oncology scenarios (33%) (95% CI, 31.16-34.85). The most common reaction to an error was to try and contact the patient (80%) (95% CI, 73.24-85.73) and to communicate the case to the team (41.4%) (95% CI, 33.97-49.22). CONCLUSIONS: AE and CE were recognized as frequent, but a third of doctors affirmed they never made a mistake. Young male physicians, unlike senior ones, communicate mistakes to the team. "Internal locus of control" and "hyperperceptive" professionals tended to have stronger emotional reactions after committing errors. Physicians felt less secure with ophthalmology and ENT problems; and older doctors added to these dermatology and palliative care.

Errores clínicos y eventos adversos: percepción de los médicos de atención primaria / Clinical error and adverse events: primary care doctors’ perception

Objetivo. Mostrar cómo el médico percibe y afronta los errores clínicos y/o acontecimientos adversos (Ec-Ea). Diseño. Estudio transversal (encuesta postal personalizada). Emplazamiento. Atención primaria del «Ámbito territorial Costa de Ponent». Participantes. Todos los médicos con plaza en propiedad en atención primaria (n = 717). Mediciones principales. Cuestionario estandarizado: frecuencia de errores y eventos adversos; comparación de las respuestas en función de la edad, el sexo, la formación MIR en medicina de familia, en los «negadores» (jamás se han equivocado de manera importante), los «perceptivos» (admiten errores en el último año), los «hiperperceptivos» (admiten 28 o más errores-acontecimientos adversos/año), los «loci internos» (admiten causas personales en los errores) y los hiperseguros (> 7 puntos sobre 10 en seguridad clínica escala de Likert). Resultados. Contestaron 238 médicos (33,2%), con una edad media de 42,6 años (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 41,6-43,6). El 28% eran «negadores» (IC del 95%, 22,34-34,26); el 67% «perceptivos» (IC del 95%, 60,79-73,23); el 7,4% «hiperperceptivos» (IC del 95%, 4,41-11,44); el 6%, «loci interno» (IC del 95%, 3,34-9,91), y el 23,4% hiperseguros (IC del 95%, 18,14-29,22). Se informó sobre 10,6 acontecimientos adversos/año/profesional, sobre todo eventos adversos de fármacos (37%) (IC del 95%, 35,36-39,15) y retraso diagnóstico en una enfermedad neoplásica (33%) (IC del 95%, 31,16-34,85). La reacción más frecuente era intentar contactar con el paciente (80%; IC del 95%, 73,24-85,73) y comentar el caso con el equipo (el 41,4%; IC del 95%, 33,97-49,22). Conclusiones. Los Ec-Ea se reconocen como frecuentes, pero un tercio de los médicos afirma no haberse equivocado nunca de manera importante. El médico varón joven, a diferencia del experimentado, socializa sus errores con el equipo. Los profesionales de «locus interno» e «hiperperceptivos» son proclives a reacciones emocionales más acusadas ante la comisión de errores clínicos. Los médicos reconocen menos seguridad en ORL y oftalmología y, además de éstos, los médicos experimentados también declaraban inseguridad en dermatología y cuidados paliativos

Objective. To evaluate how primary care physicians perceive and face clinical errors (CE) and/or adverse events (AE). Design. Cross-sectional study (personal mail survey). Setting. Primary care physicians from "Ambit Costa de Ponent." Participants. All doctors with tenure from this area (717). Main measurements. Standardized questionnaire with error and adverse event frequencies. We compared answers considering age, gender, family medicine residency, "deniers" (never make a mistake), "perceptive" (admitting a mistake in the last year), "hyper-perceptive" (28 or more errors/adverse events a year), "internal locus of control" (admitting personal reasons in errors), and "hypersecure" (>7 points out of 10 in clinical security on Likert scale). Results. Two hundred thirty eight physicians (33.2%) with an average age of 42.6 (95% CI, 41.6-43.6) replied. The 28% were "deniers" (95% CI, 22.34-34.26), 67% "perceptive" (95% CI, 60.79-73.23), 7.4% "hyperperceptive" (95% CI, 4.41-11.44), 6% had "internal locus of control" (95% CI, 3.34-9.91), and 23.4% were "hypersecure" (95% CI, 18.14-29.22). Every doctor had on average 10.6 adverse events yearly, mainly drug side-effects (37%) (95% CI, 35.36-39.15), and diagnostic delay in oncology scenarios (33%) (95% CI, 31.16-34.85). The most common reaction to an error was to try and contact the patient (80%) (95% CI, 73.24-85.73) and to communicate the case to the team (41.4%) (95% CI, 33.97-49.22). Conclusions. AE and CE were recognized as frequent, but a third of doctors affirmed they never made a mistake. Young male physicians, unlike senior ones, communicate mistakes to the team. "Internal locus of control" and "hyperperceptive" professionals tended to have stronger emotional reactions after committing errors. Physicians felt less secure with ophthalmology and ENT problems; and older doctors added to these dermatology and palliative care

The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry.

The biopsychosocial model is both a philosophy of clinical care and a practical clinical guide. Philosophically, it is a way of understanding how suffering, disease, and illness are affected by multiple levels of organization, from the societal to the molecular. At the practical level, it is a way of understanding the patient's subjective experience as an essential contributor to accurate diagnosis, health outcomes, and humane care. In this article, we defend the biopsychosocial model as a necessary contribution to the scientific clinical method, while suggesting 3 clarifications: (1) the relationship between mental and physical aspects of health is complex--subjective experience depends on but is not reducible to laws of physiology; (2) models of circular causality must be tempered by linear approximations when considering treatment options; and (3) promoting a more participatory clinician-patient relationship is in keeping with current Western cultural tendencies, but may not be universally accepted. We propose a biopsychosocial-oriented clinical practice whose pillars include (1) self-awareness; (2) active cultivation of trust; (3) an emotional style characterized by empathic curiosity; (4) self-calibration as a way to reduce bias; (5) educating the emotions to assist with diagnosis and forming therapeutic relationships; (6) using informed intuition; and (7) communicating clinical evidence to foster dialogue, not just the mechanical application of protocol. In conclusion, the value of the biopsychosocial model has not been in the discovery of new scientific laws, as the term "new paradigm" would suggest, but rather in guiding parsimonious application of medical knowledge to the needs of each patient.

Preventing errors in clinical practice: a call for self-awareness.

While ascribing medical errors primarily to systems factors can free clinicians from individual blame, there are elements of medical errors that can and should be attributed to individual factors. These factors are related less commonly to lack of knowledge and skill than to the inability to apply the clinician's abilities to situations under certain circumstances. In concert with efforts to improve health care systems, refining physicians' emotional and cognitive capacities might also prevent many errors. In general, physicians have the sensation of making a mistake because of the interference of emotional elements. We propose a so-called rational-emotive model that emphasizes 2 factors in error causation: (1) difficulty in reframing the first hypothesis that goes to the physician's mind in an automatic way, and (2) premature closure of the clinical act to avoid confronting inconsistencies, low-level decision rules, and emotions. We propose a teaching strategy based on developing the physician's insight and self-awareness to detect the inappropriate use of low-level decision rules, as well as detecting the factors that limit a physician's capacity to tolerate the tension of uncertainty and ambiguity. Emotional self-awareness and self-regulation of attention can be consciously cultivated as habits to help physicians function better in clinical situations.

Homeopatía: creencias, praxis, pruebas / Homeopathy: beliefs, praxis, tests

No disponible

Relaciones entre profesionales sanitarios / Relationshipsamong health professionals

No disponible