The clinical teacher · 2011
Ward rounds: missed learning opportunities in diagnostic changes?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bhangu Aneel, Hartshorne Gemma
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The introduction of the European Working Time Directive has resulted in the on-call general surgery junior doctor regularly missing consultant-led post-take ward rounds (PTWRs). This study aimed to determine the frequency with which the admission diagnosis was changed on the PTWR, and thus whether an educational opportunity for trainees is missed.
METHODS: Prospective observational study of consecutive admissions to a general surgery department over a 4-week period was conducted. Patients with exacerbations of known conditions were excluded.
RESULTS: Fifty-two included patients were admitted by seven general surgery juniors, and 27 per cent (14/52) of diagnoses were changed on the PTWR. There were two 'major' diagnostic changes: peritonitis and ischaemic bowel. Patients whose diagnoses were changed by the consultant were no more likely to be older (p = 0.575) or have differing white cell counts (p = 0.471), C-reactive proteins (CRPs; p = 0.643) or amylase levels (p = 0.666) than those whose initial diagnosis was agreed with. Thirty-five per cent of patients (18/52) had further investigations ordered at the PTWR. These included nine ultrasound scans, four computed tomography scans, three abdominal or chest X-rays, two flexible sigmoidoscopies and one barium enema. In one case, a serum amylase was ordered.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of incorrect diagnoses by on-call surgical juniors is high, and educational feedback to these doctors is important. The PTWR represents a strong educational opportunity that is missed if admitting junior doctors are not present. These results should be taken into account for any specialty that uses junior doctors to admit patients who are then reviewed by a consultant on a PTWR.
METHODS: Prospective observational study of consecutive admissions to a general surgery department over a 4-week period was conducted. Patients with exacerbations of known conditions were excluded.
RESULTS: Fifty-two included patients were admitted by seven general surgery juniors, and 27 per cent (14/52) of diagnoses were changed on the PTWR. There were two 'major' diagnostic changes: peritonitis and ischaemic bowel. Patients whose diagnoses were changed by the consultant were no more likely to be older (p = 0.575) or have differing white cell counts (p = 0.471), C-reactive proteins (CRPs; p = 0.643) or amylase levels (p = 0.666) than those whose initial diagnosis was agreed with. Thirty-five per cent of patients (18/52) had further investigations ordered at the PTWR. These included nine ultrasound scans, four computed tomography scans, three abdominal or chest X-rays, two flexible sigmoidoscopies and one barium enema. In one case, a serum amylase was ordered.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of incorrect diagnoses by on-call surgical juniors is high, and educational feedback to these doctors is important. The PTWR represents a strong educational opportunity that is missed if admitting junior doctors are not present. These results should be taken into account for any specialty that uses junior doctors to admit patients who are then reviewed by a consultant on a PTWR.