A 47-year-old homeless male presents to the emergency department (ED) with right lower extremity swelling, erythema and pain. He has diabetes mellitus, and had one prior episode of cellulitis three months ago affecting the same leg. He has a history of medication noncompliance. At triage, his temperature is 38.3°C but the remaining vital signs are unremarkable. On examination of the affected leg, there is an approximately 10 × 10 cm area of erythema, induration and increased warmth. There is mild tenderness to palpation and you wonder if there is a small degree of fluctuance. There is no lymphangitis, crepitus, necrosis or pain out of proportion to clinical findings.

Introduction: The diagnostic process is wrought with potential sources of error. Psychologists seek to coach physicians to refine their cognition. Researchers try to create cognitive scaffolds to guide decision-making. Physicians however, are caught in middle between their own daily cognitive processes and these external theories that might influence their behaviour. Few attempts have been made to understand how experienced clinicians integrate guidelines or clinical decision rules (CDRs) into their decision-making. We sought to explore experienced clinicians decision-making via a simulated exercise, to develop a model of how physicians integrate CDRs into their diagnostic thinking. Methods: From July 2015-March 2016, 16 practicing emergency physicians (EPs) were interviewed via a think aloud protocol study. Six cases were constructed and video recorded as prompts to spur the clinicians to think aloud and describe their approach to the cases. Cases were designed to be slightly suggestive for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, since these conditions are associated with CDRs. Using a constructivist grounded theory analysis, three investigators independently reviewed the transcripts from the interviews, meeting regularly to discuss emergent themes and subthemes until sufficiency was reached. Disagreements about themes were resolved by discussion and consensus. Results: Our analysis suggests that physicians engage in an iterative process when they are faced with undifferentiated chest pain and leg pain cases. After generating an original differential diagnosis, EPs engage in an iterative diagnostic process. They flip between hypothesis-driven data collection (e.g. history, physical exam, tests) and analysis of this data, and use this process to weigh probabilities of various diagnoses. EPs only apply CDRs once they are sufficiently suspicious of a diagnosis requiring guidance from a CDR and when they experience diagnostic uncertainty or wish to bolster their decision with evidence. Conclusion: EP cognition around diagnosis is a dynamic and iterative process, and may only peripherally integrate relevant CDRs if a threshold level of suspicion is met. Our findings may be useful for improving knowledge translation of CDRs and prevent diagnostic error.

Introduction: Understanding factors that influence laboratory test ordering in emergency departments (EDs) can help to improve current laboratory test ordering practices. The aim of this study is to compare patterns and influences in laboratory test ordering between emergency physicians and nurses at two ED sites, Halifax Infirmary (HI) and Dartmouth General (DG). Methods: A mixed-methods approach involving administrative data and telephone interviews was employed. Data from 211,279 patients at HI and DG EDs were analyzed. Chi-square analysis and binary logistic regression were used to determine significant factors influencing whether a test was ordered, as well as significant factors predicting likelihood of a nurse or a physician ordering a test. All significant associations had a p-value of <0.0001. Interviews were conducted (n=25) with doctors and nurses in order to explore areas of potential influence in a clinician’s decision-making process, and discuss what makes decision making difficult or inconsistent in the ED. These interviews were analyzed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. The interviews were coded by two individuals using a consensus methodology in order to ensure accuracy of coding. Results: Overall, laboratory tests were more likely to be ordered at DG than at HI (OR=1.52, 95% CI: [1.48, 1.55]). Laboratory tests were more likely to be ordered by nurses at DG than at HI (OR=1.58, 95% CI: [1.54, 1.62]). Laboratory tests were more likely to be ordered if the ED was not busy, if the patient was over 65, had a high acuity, had a long stay in the ED, required consults, or was admitted to hospital. Doctors were more likely to order a laboratory test in patients over 65, requiring consults or hospital admission, whereas nurses were more likely to order laboratory tests in patients with high acuity or long stays in the ED. Data from the interviews suggested differing influences on decision making between nurses and doctors, especially in the areas of social influence and knowledge. Conclusion: Currently, there is limited research that investigates behaviour of both emergency physicians and nurses. By determining barriers that are most amenable to behaviour change in emergency physicians and nurses, findings from this work may be used to update practice guidelines, ensuring more consistency and efficiency in laboratory test ordering in the ED.

Introduction: Clinical decision rules for computed tomography (CT) ordering in pulmonary embolism and mild traumatic brain injury have been shown to be under-used in clinical practice. Current literature does not explain why these validated decision rules continue to be under-used despite evidence of inappropriate use and increased costs. To better evaluate potential barriers to their use, qualitative methods involving focused interviews were conducted amongst emergency department (ED) physicians. Methods: Physicians were recruited via a brief presentation at Calgary Zone ED rounds. Ten attending and resident physicians (4 female, 6 male) were interviewed. Questions were designed to evaluate potential barriers to the integration of decision rules into the computerized order entry system. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed manually. A high-level thematic analysis was conducted to draw primary themes from open-ended questions, and responses were totaled for closed-ended questions. Results: Emerging themes suggest concerns surrounding timing of rule application in relation to test ordering, patient influences on ordering, and overuse reporting. All 10 physicians believed decision rules for CT ordering play a large role in the ED, and 8 were in favor of integration into the order entry system. However, over half expressed concern, noting that their thought process begins before order entry. A majority prioritized shared decision-making with patients. However, 8 indicated that patient expectations influence their ordering. A majority agreed that there is CT overuse in the ED, but many were hesitant in concluding that overuse was primarily physician dependent. Conclusion: Primary barriers to decision rule integration are timing of application, hesitation surrounding patient input, and uncertainty over data. Physicians often make decisions prior to order entry. Mobile copies of decision rules should be available to better facilitate compliance. Concerns over patient influence on ordering are common. Patient-friendly materials on clinical decision rules should be available to better facilitate shared decision making while still promoting decision rules. While overuse is agreed upon, many prefer to see and track their own ordering data before supporting a physician-targeted intervention. Data reports to physicians may help affirm physician-associated overuse, and reinforce their role in responsible resource utilization.

It has been said that we are the sum of all we have met. As a learner in the emergency department, I have a lot of meeting to do. Take Sandy, a 35-year-old single mother.

Her triage note reads that she came to the hospital after losing her breath bathing her 3-year-old daughter.

If you had read it.

If you had asked her, she would have told you that she’s been sweating through her clothing during the day, causing her colleagues in the university administrative office to stare awkwardly. She says no to your list of Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) criteria queries, uses a copper intrauterine device (IUD) as birth control (it was the cheapest option), and is healthy, as far as she knows.

If you had asked her.

If you had listened, she would have described a difficult social situation that had left her the sole provider for her young daughter. She walks the local drag once or twice a month, selling sex to whomever will buy as her current job does not pay enough to make rent every 30 days.

This paper concerns one of the four research projects developed during a training course in clinical epidemiology managed by the Lombardy training centers IREF. Objectives — To compare the recommandations for treatment concerning 9 vignettes derived from the Australian Quality Assurance Project. Setting — Six Mental Health Services of Regione Lombardia. Design and Participants — For each vignette, all psychiatrists working in the 6 Mental Health Services were asked to fill in a questionnaire about treatment location, psychopharmacology, psychotheraphy, priority between psychotherapy and psychopharmacology and degree of difficulty in answering. Results — 44 out of 52 target psychiatrists took part to the study. Remarkable variability for treatment location and psychotherapies; moderate variation for psychodrugs prescriptions and a good agreement for diagnoses were observed. In drugs prescription an eccess of association was observed. The most prevalent model of psychotherapy was the psychodynamic, followed by the cognitivebehavioural and the family-systemic. There was a tendency toward a flexible approach, as suggested by recommendations of different psychotherapeutic models according to the nature of the disorder. No case were judged very difficult; only in 3 cases a judgement of «somewhat difficult» was expressed by more than 20% (but less than 30%) of the psychiatrists. Conclusions — Studies of this type are very easy to carry out and give useful information for continuous training programs and Continuous Quality Improvement projects.

Development of competence in exercising therapeutic judgment skills represents the goal of clinical education. Time (clock hours) is not a valid predictor of attainment of competence in paramedic clinical education. Quantity of patient contact experiences facilitates development of judgment skills, and offers a valid measure of progress toward competence. This project uses national survey data from accredited programs to describe the availability and accessibility of patient contact experiences within paramedic clinical education. Data from this local program supplements the national survey results. The components of clinical judgment are enumerated, and strategies to teach and evaluate clinical judgment skills are discussed.