Is language an issue? Accuracy of the German computerized diagnostic decision support system ISABEL and cross-validation with the English counterpart.

OBJECTIVES: Existing computerized diagnostic decision support tools (CDDS) accurately return possible differential diagnoses (DDx) based on the clinical information provided. The German versions of the CDDS tools for clinicians (Isabel Pro) and patients (Isabel Symptom Checker) from ISABEL Healthcare have not been validated yet. METHODS: We entered clinical features of 50 patient vignettes taken from an emergency medical text book and 50 real cases with a confirmed diagnosis derived from the electronic health record (EHR) of a large academic Swiss emergency room into the German versions of Isabel Pro and Isabel Symptom Checker. We analysed the proportion of DDx lists that included the correct diagnosis. RESULTS: Isabel Pro and Symptom Checker provided the correct diagnosis in 82 and 71 % of the cases, respectively. Overall, the correct diagnosis was ranked in 71 , 61 and 37 % of the cases within the top 20, 10 and 3 of the provided DDx when using Isabel Pro. In general, accuracy was higher with vignettes than ED cases, i.e. listed the correct diagnosis more often (non-significant) and ranked the diagnosis significantly more often within the top 20, 10 and 3. On average, 38 ± 4.5 DDx were provided by Isabel Pro and Symptom Checker. CONCLUSIONS: The German versions of Isabel achieved a somewhat lower accuracy compared to previous studies of the English version. The accuracy decreases substantially when the position in the suggested DDx list is taken into account. Whether Isabel Pro is accurate enough to improve diagnostic quality in clinical ED routine needs further investigation.

Effects of a computerised diagnostic decision support tool on diagnostic quality in emergency departments: study protocol of the DDx-BRO multicentre cluster randomised cross-over trial.

INTRODUCTION: Computerised diagnostic decision support systems (CDDS) suggesting differential diagnoses to physicians aim to improve clinical reasoning and diagnostic quality. However, controlled clinical trials investigating their effectiveness and safety are absent and the consequences of its use in clinical practice are unknown. We aim to investigate the effect of CDDS use in the emergency department (ED) on diagnostic quality, workflow, resource consumption and patient outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, outcome assessor and patient-blinded, cluster-randomised, multiperiod crossover superiority trial. A validated differential diagnosis generator will be implemented in four EDs and randomly allocated to a sequence of six alternating intervention and control periods. During intervention periods, the treating ED physician will be asked to consult the CDDS at least once during diagnostic workup. During control periods, physicians will not have access to the CDDS and diagnostic workup will follow usual clinical care. Key inclusion criteria will be patients' presentation to the ED with either fever, abdominal pain, syncope or a non-specific complaint as chief complaint. The primary outcome is a binary diagnostic quality risk score composed of presence of an unscheduled medical care after discharge, change in diagnosis or death during time of follow-up or an unexpected upscale in care within 24 hours after hospital admission. Time of follow-up is 14 days. At least 1184 patients will be included. Secondary outcomes include length of hospital stay, diagnostics and data regarding CDDS usage, physicians' confidence calibration and diagnostic workflow. Statistical analysis will use general linear mixed modelling methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the cantonal ethics committee of canton Berne (2022-D0002) and Swissmedic, the Swiss national regulatory authority on medical devices. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, open repositories and the network of investigators and the expert and patients advisory board. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05346523.

The Utility of an Online Forward Triage Tool During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Health Care Provider and Health Authority Perspectives.

Introduction: The SARS CoV-2 pandemic poses major challenges not only to patients but also to health care professionals and policy-makers, with rapidly changing, sometimes complex, recommendations, and guidelines to the population. Online forward triage tools (OFTT) got a major boost from the pandemic as they helped with the implementation and monitoring of recommendations. Methods: A multiphase mixed method sequential explanatory study design was employed. Quantitative data were collected first and informed the qualitative interview guides. Video interviews were held with key informants (health care providers and health authorities) between 2 September and 10 December 2020. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, coded thematically and compared with patient perspectives (framework). Objectives: To explore the perspectives of health care providers and authorities in Canton Bern on the utility of a COVID-19 OFTT, as well as elicit recommendations for telehealth in future. Results: The following themes emerged; (i) accessibility (ii) health system burden reduction (iii) utility in preventing onward transmission (iv) utility in allaying fear and anxiety (v) medical decision-making utility (vi) utility as information source (vii) utility in planning and systems thinking. The health care providers and health authorities further provided insights on potential barriers and facilitators of telehealth in future. Conclusion: Similar to patients, health care providers acknowledge the potential and utility of the COVID-19 OFTT particularly as an information source and in reducing the health system burden. Data privacy, doctor-patient relationship, resistance to change, regulatory, and mandate issues, and lack of systems thinking were revealed as barriers to COVID-19 OFTT utility.

Frequency and predictors of unspecific medical diagnoses in the emergency department: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosis is a major public health problem, causing increased morbidity and mortality. In the busy setting of an emergency department (ED) patients are diagnosed under difficult circumstances. As a consequence, the ED diagnosis at hospital admittance may often be a descriptive diagnosis, such as "decreased general condition". Our objective was to determine in how far patients with such an unspecific ED diagnosis differ from patients with a specific ED diagnosis and whether they experience a worse outcome. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in Bern university hospital in Switzerland for all adult non-trauma patients admitted to any internal medicine ward from August 15th 2015 to December 7th 2015. Unspecific ED diagnoses were defined through the clinical classification software for ICD-10 by two outcome assessors. As outcome parameters, we assessed in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty six consecutive patients were included. Unspecific diagnoses were identified in 100 (14.6%) of all consultations. Patients receiving an unspecific diagnosis at ED discharge were significantly more often women (56.0% vs. 43.9%, p = 0.024), presented more often with a non-specific complaint (34% vs. 21%, p = 0.004), were less often demonstrating an abnormal heart rate (5.0% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.03), and less often on antibiotics (32.0% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.002). Apart from these, no studied drug intake, laboratory or clinical data including change in diagnosis was associated significantly with an unspecific diagnosis. Unspecific diagnoses were neither associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analysis (OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 0.60-5.04; p = 0.305) adjusted for relevant confounders nor with length of hospital stay (GMR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.23-3.32; p = 0.840). CONCLUSIONS: Women and patients with non-specific presenting complaints and no abnormal heart rate are at risk of receiving unspecific ED diagnoses that do not allow for targeted treatment, discharge and prognosis. This study did not find an effect of such diagnoses on length of hospital stay nor in-hospital mortality.

What factors affect team members' evaluation of collaboration in medical teams?

Introduction: Perceived teamwork quality is associated with numerous work-related outcomes, ranging from team effectiveness to job satisfaction. This study explored what situational and stable factors affect the perceived quality of teamwork during a specific team task: when a medical team comprising a senior (supervisor) and a junior (trainee) physician diagnoses a patient. Methods: During a field study in an emergency department, multisource data describing the patients, the diagnosing physicians, and the context were collected, including physicians' ratings of their teamwork. The relationships between perceived teamwork quality and situational (e.g., workload) and stable (e.g., seniority) factors were estimated in a latent regression model using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Results: Across the N = 495 patients included, SEM analyses revealed that the patient-specific case clarity and urgency influenced the perceived teamwork quality positively, whereas the work experience of the supervisor influenced the perceived teamwork quality of both supervisor and trainee negatively, albeit to different degrees. Discussion: Our findings shed light on the complex underpinnings of perceived teamwork quality, a performance-relevant factor that may influence work and organizational effectiveness in healthcare settings.

Automated identification of diagnostic labelling errors in medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of diagnostic error is complex and mostly relies on expert ratings, a severely limited procedure. We developed a system that allows to automatically identify diagnostic labelling error from diagnoses coded according to the international classification of diseases (ICD), often available as routine health care data. METHODS: The system developed (index test) was validated against rater based classifications taken from three previous studies of diagnostic labeling error (reference standard). The system compares pairs of diagnoses through calculation of their distance within the ICD taxonomy. Calculation is based on four different algorithms. To assess the concordance between index test and reference standard, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and corresponding confidence intervals. Analysis were conducted overall and separately per algorithm and type of available dataset. RESULTS: Diagnoses of 1,127 cases were analyzed. Raters previously classified 24.58% of cases as diagnostic labelling errors (ranging from 12.3 to 87.2% in the three datasets). AUROC ranged between 0.821 and 0.837 overall, depending on the algorithm used to calculate the index test (95% CIs ranging from 0.8 to 0.86). Analyzed per type of dataset separately, the highest AUROC was 0.924 (95% CI 0.887-0.962). CONCLUSIONS: The trigger system to automatically identify diagnostic labeling error from routine health care data performs excellent, and is unaffected by the reference standards' limitations. It is however only applicable to cases with pairs of diagnoses, of which one must be more accurate or otherwise superior than the other, reflecting a prevalent definition of a diagnostic labeling error.

Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Wrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self-monitoring? METHODS: Advanced medical students (N = 90) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to complete six computer-based patient cases: group 1 (prompt) was instructed to write down all diagnoses they considered while acquiring diagnostic test results and to finally rank them. Groups 2 and 3 received the same instruction plus a list of 17 differential diagnoses for the chief complaint of the patient. For half of the cases, the DDXC contained the correct diagnosis (DDXC+), and for the other half, it did not (DDXC-; counterbalanced). Group 4 (control) was only instructed to indicate their final diagnosis. Mixed-effects models were used to analyse results. RESULTS: Students using a DDXC that contained the correct diagnosis had better diagnostic accuracy, mean (standard deviation), 0.75 (0.44), compared to controls without a checklist, 0.49 (0.50), P < 0.001, but those using a DDXC that did not contain the correct diagnosis did slightly worse, 0.43 (0.50), P = 0.602. The number and relevance of diagnostic tests acquired were not affected by condition, nor was self-monitoring. However, participants spent more time on a case in the DDXC-, 4:20 min (2:36), P ≤ 0.001, and DDXC+ condition, 3:52 min (2:09), than in the control condition, 2:59 min (1:44), P ≤ 0.001. DISCUSSION: Being provided a list of possible diagnoses improves diagnostic accuracy compared with a prompt to create a differential diagnosis list, if the provided list contains the correct diagnosis. However, being provided a diagnosis list without the correct diagnosis did not improve and might have slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy. Interventions neither affected information gathering nor self-monitoring.

Do different response formats affect how test takers approach a clinical reasoning task? An experimental study on antecedents of diagnostic accuracy using a constructed response and a selected response format.

The use of response formats in assessments of medical knowledge and clinical reasoning continues to be the focus of both research and debate. In this article, we report on an experimental study in which we address the question of how much list-type selected response formats and short-essay type constructed response formats are related to differences in how test takers approach clinical reasoning tasks. The design of this study was informed by a framework developed within cognitive psychology which stresses the importance of the interplay between two components of reasoning-self-monitoring and response inhibition-while solving a task or case. The results presented support the argument that different response formats are related to different processing behavior. Importantly, the pattern of how different factors are related to a correct response in both situations seem to be well in line with contemporary accounts of reasoning. Consequently, we argue that when designing assessments of clinical reasoning, it is crucial to tap into the different facets of this complex and important medical process.

Digital competencies in medical education in Switzerland: an overview of the current situation.

Background: Today's medical students are growing up in a digital age in which the use of smartphones and smart devices is now irrevocably part of professional life. However, the abilities to use these devices that have become so ubiquitous in private life can only be partially transferred to work with patients and the medical setting. Since little is known about digitalization in medical education, the aim of this paper is to gain an overview of the current training in digital competencies at Swiss universities. Methods: The medical deans at all Swiss universities were contacted by telephone and informed about an online survey. The invitation to fill out the Survey Monkey questionnaire was subsequently sent by email to the specific contacts at each university. The survey consisted of questions to be answered using a defined scale and open-ended questions. The survey's focus, topics involving digital competencies, is based on the content in the Principal Relevant Objectives and Framework for Integrative Learning and Education in Switzerland (PROFILES) and the National Competency-based Catalogue of Learning Objective in Undergraduate Medicine (NKLM). Results: All of the dean's offices that were contacted participated in the survey. The topics on digitalization were all rated as relevant or very relevant. Our survey shows a heterogeneous picture in terms of implementing PROFILE and NKLM content. A few universities have well-established educational approaches or even implemented curricula, but often these are still in development. Participants also mentioned factors that are necessary for successfully setting up and implementing curricula dealing with digitalization and factors that can impede such efforts. Conclusion: The importance of acquiring digital competencies during medical study is known and recognized by all Swiss medical schools. Curricular integration varies in its progress and represents major challenges for the medical faculties. It is precisely the inclusion of students in such efforts that may be a potential response to this challenge.

An observational study of self-monitoring in ad hoc health care teams.

BACKGROUND: Working in ad hoc teams in a health care environment is frequent but a challenging and complex undertaking. One way for teams to refine their teamwork could be through post-resuscitation reflection and debriefing. However, this would require that teams have insight into the quality of their teamwork. This study investigates (1) the accuracy of the self-monitoring of ad hoc resuscitation teams and their leaders relative to external observations of their teamwork and (2) the relationship of team self-monitoring and external observations to objective performance measures. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative observational study of real-world ad hoc interprofessional teams responding to a simulated cardiac arrest in an emergency room. Teams consisting of residents, consultants, and nurses were confronted with an unexpected, simulated, standardized cardiac arrest situation. Their teamwork was videotaped to allow for subsequent external evaluation on the team emergency assessment measure (TEAM) checklist. In addition, objective performance measures such as time to defibrillation were collected. All participants completed a demographic questionnaire prior to the simulation and a questionnaire tapping their perceptions of teamwork directly after it. RESULTS: 22 teams consisting of 115 health care professionals showed highly variable performance. All performance measures intercorrelated significantly, with the exception of team leaders' evaluations of teamwork, which were not related to any other measures. Neither team size nor cumulative experience were correlated with any measures, but teams led by younger leaders performed better than those led by older ones. CONCLUSION: Team members seem to have better insight into their team's teamwork than team leaders. As a practical consequence, the decision to debrief and the debriefing itself after a resuscitation should be informed by team members, not just leaders.

Think Twice: Effects on Diagnostic Accuracy of Returning to the Case to Reflect Upon the Initial Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Diagnostic errors have been attributed to failure to sufficiently reflect on initial diagnoses. However, evidence of the benefits of reflection is conflicting. This study examined whether reflection upon initial diagnoses on difficult cases improved diagnostic accuracy and whether reflection triggered by confrontation with case evidence was more beneficial than simply revising initial diagnoses. METHOD: Participants were physicians in Bern, Switzerland, registered for the 2018 Swiss internal medicine certification exam. They diagnosed written clinical cases, providing an initial diagnosis by following the same instructions and returning to the case to provide a final diagnosis. The latter required different types of reflection depending on the physician's experimental condition: return without instructions, identify confirmatory evidence, identify contradictory evidence, or identify both confirmatory and contradictory evidence. The authors examined diagnostic accuracy scores (range 0-1) as a function of diagnostic phase and reflection type. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-seven physicians participated. Diagnostic accuracy scores did not significantly differ between the 4 groups of physicians in the initial (I) or the final (F) diagnostic phase (mean [95% CI]: return without instructions, I: 0.21 [0.17, 0.26], F: 0.23 [0.18, 0.28]; confirmatory evidence, I: 0.24 [0.19, 0.29], F: 0.31 [0.25, 0.37]; contradictory evidence, I: 0.22 [0.17, 0.26], F: 0.26 [0.22, 0.30]; confirmatory and contradictory evidence, I: 0.19 [0.15, 0.23], F: 0.25 [0.20, 0.31]). Regardless of type of reflection employed while revising the case, accuracy increased significantly between initial and final diagnosis, I: 0.22 (0.19, 0.24) vs F: 0.26 (0.24, 0.29); P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' diagnostic accuracy improved after reflecting upon initial diagnoses provided for difficult cases, independently of the evidence searched for while reflecting. The findings support the importance attributed to reflection in clinical teaching. Future research should investigate whether revising the case can become more beneficial by triggering additional reflection.

Diagnostic error increases mortality and length of hospital stay in patients presenting through the emergency room.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors occur frequently, especially in the emergency room. Estimates about the consequences of diagnostic error vary widely and little is known about the factors predicting error. Our objectives thus was to determine the rate of discrepancy between diagnoses at hospital admission and discharge in patients presenting through the emergency room, the discrepancies' consequences, and factors predicting them. METHODS: Prospective observational clinical study combined with a survey in a University-affiliated tertiary care hospital. Patients' hospital discharge diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis at hospital admittance through the emergency room and classified as similar or discrepant according to a predefined scheme by two independent expert raters. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the effect of diagnostic discrepancy on mortality and length of hospital stay and to determine whether characteristics of patients, diagnosing physicians, and context predicted diagnostic discrepancy. RESULTS: 755 consecutive patients (322 [42.7%] female; mean age 65.14 years) were included. The discharge diagnosis differed substantially from the admittance diagnosis in 12.3% of cases. Diagnostic discrepancy was associated with a longer hospital stay (mean 10.29 vs. 6.90 days; Cohen's d 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.70; P = 0.002) and increased patient mortality (8 (8.60%) vs. 25(3.78%); OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.05 to 5.5 P = 0.038). A factor available at admittance that predicted diagnostic discrepancy was the diagnosing physician's assessment that the patient presented atypically for the diagnosis assigned (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.33-6.96; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant healthcare problem in patients admitted through the emergency room because they occur in every ninth patient and are associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Discrepancies are not readily predictable by fixed patient or physician characteristics; attention should focus on context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e011585.

Improving Management of Limb Injuries in Disasters and Conflicts.

It has become clear that disaster relief needs to transition from good intentions or a charity-based approach to a professional, outcome-oriented response. The practice of medicine in disaster and conflict is a profession practiced in environments where lack of resources, chaos, and unpredictability are the norm rather than the exception. With this consideration in mind, the World Health Organization (WHO; Geneva, Switzerland) and its partners set out to improve the disaster response systems. The resulting Emergency Medical Team (EMT) classification system requires that teams planning on engaging in disaster response follow common standards for the delivery of care in resource-constraint environments. In order to clarify these standards, the WHO EMT Secretariat collaborated with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC; Geneva, Switzerland) and leading experts from other stakeholder non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to produce a guide to the management of limb injuries in disaster and conflict.The resulting text is a free and open-access resource to provide guidance for national and international EMTs caring for patients in disasters and conflicts. The content is a result of expert consensus, literature review, and an iterative process designed to encourage debate and resolution of existing open questions within the field of disaster and conflict medical response.The end result of this process is a text providing guidance to providers seeking to deliver safe, effective care within the EMT framework that is now part of the EMT training and verification system and is being distributed to ICRC teams deploying to the field.This work seeks to encourage professionalization of the field of disaster and conflict response, and to contribute to the existing EMT framework, in order to provide for better care for future victims of disaster and conflict.Jensen G, Bar-On E, Wiedler JT, Hautz SC, Veen H, Kay AR, Norton I, Gosselin RA, von Schreeb J. Improving management of limb injuries in disasters and conflicts. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(3):330-334.

Accuracy of self-monitoring: does experience, ability or case difficulty matter?

CONTEXT: The ability to self-monitor one's performance in clinical settings is a critical determinant of safe and effective practice. Various studies have shown this form of self-regulation to be more trustworthy than aggregate judgements (i.e. self-assessments) of one's capacity in a given domain. However, little is known regarding what cues inform learners' self-monitoring, which limits an informed exploration of interventions that might facilitate improvements in self-monitoring capacity. The purpose of this study is to understand the influence of characteristics of the individual (e.g. ability) and characteristics of the problem (e.g. case difficulty) on the accuracy of self-monitoring by medical students. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 283 medical students from 5 years of study completed a computer-based clinical reasoning exercise. Confidence ratings were collected after completing each of six cases and the accuracy of self-monitoring was considered to be a function of confidence when the eventual answer was correct relative to when the eventual answer was incorrect. The magnitude of that difference was then explored as a function of year of seniority, gender, case difficulty and overall aptitude. RESULTS: Students demonstrated accurate self-monitoring by virtue of giving higher confidence ratings (57.3%) and taking a shorter time to work through cases (25.6 seconds) when their answers were correct relative to when they were wrong (41.8% and 52.0 seconds, respectively; p< 0.001 and d > 0.5 in both instances). Self-monitoring indices were related to student seniority and case difficulty, but not to overall ability or student gender. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the accuracy of self-monitoring is context specific, being heavily influenced by the struggles students experience with a particular case rather than reflecting a generic ability to know when one is right or wrong. That said, the apparent capacity to self-monitor increases developmentally because increasing experience provides a greater likelihood of success with presented problems.

Non-specific complaints at emergency department presentation result in unclear diagnoses and lengthened hospitalization: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of patients admitted to an emergency department present with non-specific complaints. Retrospective studies suggest an increased risk of misdiagnosis and hospital admission for these patients, but prospective comparisons of the outcomes of emergency patients with non-specific complaints versus specific complaints are lacking. METHODS: All consecutive patients ≥18 years of age admitted to any internal medicine ward at Bern University Hospital via the emergency department from August 15th 2015 to December 7th 2015 were prospectively included and followed up upon. Patients with non-specific complaints were compared against those with specific complaints regarding the quality of their emergency department diagnosis, length of hospital stay and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred and-eleven patients, 165 (23.21%) with non-specific complaints and 546 with specific complaints, were included in this study. No differences between patient groups regarding age, gender or initial severity of the medical problem (deducted from triage category and treatment in a resuscitation bay) were found. Patients with non-specific complaints received more unspecific diagnoses (30.3% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.001, OR = 1.82 [95% CI 1.159-2.899]), were hospitalized significantly longer (Median = 6.51 (IQR = 5.85) vs. 5.22 (5.83) days, p = 0.025, d = 0.2) but did not have a higher mortality than patients with specific complaints (7.3% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.087, OR 1.922 [95% CI 0.909-4.065]). CONCLUSIONS: Non-specific complaints in patients admitted to an emergency department result in low-quality diagnoses and lengthened hospitalization, despite the patients being comparable to patients with specific complaints at admission.

Six degrees of separation: the small world of medical education.

CONTEXT: Conventional wisdom has it that everyone on earth is on average only six steps away from knowing any other person through 'a friend of a friend'. On a local level, however, many people experience that most of their acquaintances know each other. It is thus hard to imagine how such a highly clustered group could be so well connected to the rest of the world. In this paper, we investigate how co-authorship connects scholars in medical education and whether the six degrees of separation hypothesis also applies to the network of authors in the field. METHODS: We constructed a mathematical graph from publication data obtained on the top three journals in the field and analysed it using social network analysis methods. We found Lorelei Lingard to be one centre of the network of co-authors and determined the numbers of authors who were one, two or more steps away from her. We further created a website that makes it possible to identify the shortest path from any author in the field to any other, including links to the connecting papers. RESULTS: The analysis covered 16 653 papers by a total of 24 258 different authors. Co-authorship connected authors into 68 663 unique pairs, of which 61 937 had co-authored only one article; 67.43% of all authors were linked to each other through a 'co-author of a co-author'. The average shortest path between any two authors in this network was 5.98 (min 1, max 17); the average distance to Lorelei Lingard was 4.17 (min 1, max 10). CONCLUSION: The field of medical education represents what social network analysts term 'a small world network'. Making the connections between its actors visible may provide a new perspective on social phenomena that occur in this world, including peer review, citation and conference invitations.

Factors predicting a change in diagnosis in patients hospitalised through the emergency room: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency rooms (ERs) generally assign a preliminary diagnosis to patients, who are then hospitalised and may subsequently experience a change in their lead diagnosis (cDx). In ERs, the cDx rate varies from around 15% to more than 50%. Among the most frequent reasons for diagnostic errors are cognitive slips, which mostly result from faulty data synthesis. Furthermore, physicians have been repeatedly found to be poor self-assessors and to be overconfident in the quality of their diagnosis, which limits their ability to improve. Therefore, some of the clinically most relevant research questions concern how diagnostic decisions are made, what determines their quality and what can be done to improve them. Research that addresses these questions is, however, still rare. In particular, field studies that allow for generalising findings from controlled experimental settings are lacking. The ER, with its high throughput and its many simultaneous visits, is perfectly suited for the study of factors contributing to diagnostic error. With this study, we aim to identify factors that allow prediction of an ER's diagnostic performance. Knowledge of these factors as well as of their relative importance allows for the development of organisational, medical and educational strategies to improve the diagnostic performance of ERs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a field study by collecting diagnostic decision data, physician confidence and a number of influencing factors in a real-world setting to model real-world diagnostic decisions and investigate the adequacy, validity and informativeness of physician confidence in these decisions. We will specifically collect data on patient, physician and encounter factors as predictors of the dependent variables. Statistical methods will include analysis of variance and a linear mixed-effects model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Bern ethics committee approved the study under KEK Number 197/15. Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. Authorship will be determined according to ICMJE guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol Version 1.0 from 17 May 2015 is registered in the Inselspital Research Database Information System (IRDIS) and with the IRB ('Kantonale Ethikkomission') Bern under KEK Number 197/15.

What makes a doctor a scholar: a systematic review and content analysis of outcome frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Many national outcome frameworks (OF) call for a sound scholarship education and scholarly behaviour of physicians. Educators however are known to interpret the scholar role in markedly different ways and at least one major initiative to unify several national outcome frameworks failed to agree on a common definition of the scholar role. Both circumstances currently limit the development of educational and assessment strategies specific for the scholar role. Given increasing physician mobility together with the global perspective inherent in a doctor's role as a scholar, we were interested in what different OFs define as the scholar role and attempted to identify communalities and differences between them. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for OF in medical education in PubMed and google. After in- and exclusion processes, we extracted all content listed under the scholar role (if present) and categorized it based on Boyer's established model of scholarship. Next, we extracted all content related to scholarship from OFs not explicitly defining a scholar role and used it to validate the categories resulting from step one. RESULTS: From 1816 search results, we identified 13 eligible OFs, seven of which explicitly specified a scholar role. The outcomes only partly map onto Boyer's definition of scholarship: Discovery, Integration, Application, and Teaching. We adapted and validated a model extending this definition to contain Common Basics (partly overlapping with Integration and Teaching), Clinical Application (specifying Application), Research (Discovery and partly Integration), Teaching and Education (partly overlapping with Teaching) and Lifelong Learning (no equivalent in Boyer's model). Whereas almost all OFs cover Common Basics, Clinical Application, and Lifelong Learning, fewer and less specific outcomes relate to Research or Teaching. CONCLUSIONS: The need to adapt existing models of scholarship may result from the changing demands directed at medical scholars. The considerable differences identified between OFs may explain why educators have difficulties defining the scholar role and why the role is rarely assessed. We may have missed OFs due to our in- and exclusion criteria but the results provide a solid basis on which to build a common understanding of what makes a doctor a scholar.