Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
Clinical reasoning research priorities for advancing diagnostic safety: researcher and patient perspectives.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Matin Roni, Meyer Ashley N D, Singh Hardeep, Olson Andrew P J, Cook David A, Zwaan Laura
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study used both researcher and patient perspectives to identify high-priority research questions related to clinical reasoning.
METHODS: This study integrates findings from two previously published research prioritization exercises aimed at advancing the science of diagnostic safety, focusing on questions relevant to clinical reasoning. In Study 1 (April 2019), 97 researchers submitted 177 unique research questions that could be useful "to reduce patient harm in the diagnosis process". In Study 2 (November 2019), 41 patients/caregivers/advocates submitted 84 unique research questions on the same topic. In an in-person meeting, a subset of these participants identified 81 of these questions as high-priority (51 from Study 1; 30 from Study 2). For the current study, five investigators identified questions that focused on clinical reasoning, first independently and then by consensus. They then categorized the clinical reasoning questions into inductively identified themes.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 81 high-priority research questions addressed clinical reasoning and were categorized into 5 themes: understanding clinical reasoning and cognition (12 questions), decision support/technology (6 questions), team-based decision making (5 questions), how to learn from cases/scenarios (3 questions), and patient engagement (3 questions). Questions addressed a range of basic/foundational science and clinical applications, and involved individuals, teams, and/or systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of high-priority clinical reasoning research questions can help medical educators, clinicians, researchers, and funders catalyze research and discovery of interventions to improve clinical reasoning and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
METHODS: This study integrates findings from two previously published research prioritization exercises aimed at advancing the science of diagnostic safety, focusing on questions relevant to clinical reasoning. In Study 1 (April 2019), 97 researchers submitted 177 unique research questions that could be useful "to reduce patient harm in the diagnosis process". In Study 2 (November 2019), 41 patients/caregivers/advocates submitted 84 unique research questions on the same topic. In an in-person meeting, a subset of these participants identified 81 of these questions as high-priority (51 from Study 1; 30 from Study 2). For the current study, five investigators identified questions that focused on clinical reasoning, first independently and then by consensus. They then categorized the clinical reasoning questions into inductively identified themes.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 81 high-priority research questions addressed clinical reasoning and were categorized into 5 themes: understanding clinical reasoning and cognition (12 questions), decision support/technology (6 questions), team-based decision making (5 questions), how to learn from cases/scenarios (3 questions), and patient engagement (3 questions). Questions addressed a range of basic/foundational science and clinical applications, and involved individuals, teams, and/or systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of high-priority clinical reasoning research questions can help medical educators, clinicians, researchers, and funders catalyze research and discovery of interventions to improve clinical reasoning and ultimately improve patient outcomes.