Instrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento clínico

Verónica Silva, Peter McColl, Carolina Pérez, Mariana Searle, Jessica Goset

Resultado de la investigación: Article

1 Cita (Scopus)

Resumen

Background: Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge in medical education. Aim: To design a clinical reasoning assessment instrument. Material and Methods: Structured interviews were carried out to six physicians with at least five years experience. The Grounded Theory method was used to determine the relevant categories of the clinical reasoning process and the modified Delphi expert judgment method to validate the categories, the definition of observable behaviors and the format of the instrument. Results: The relevant reasoning categories were the reason for consultation, medical history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reasoning reassessment capacity. Expert judgment assessed at a level of “strongly agree” and “agree” the sufficiency, clarity and pertinence of all categories, related observable behaviors and instrument format. The internal Kappa consistency yielded an index of 0.92. Conclusions: The resulting instrument was constructed with the following axes derived from the main categories and subcategories: reason for consultation, history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reassessment capacity.

Idioma originalSpanish
Páginas (desde-hasta)1466-1470
Número de páginas5
PublicaciónRevista Medica de Chile
Volumen146
N.º12
DOI
EstadoPublished - 1 ene 2018

Huella dactilar

Physical Examination
Referral and Consultation
Medical Education
Teaching
History
Interviews
Physicians
Therapeutics
Grounded Theory

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Citar esto

Silva, Verónica ; McColl, Peter ; Pérez, Carolina ; Searle, Mariana ; Goset, Jessica. / Instrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento clínico. En: Revista Medica de Chile. 2018 ; Vol. 146, N.º 12. pp. 1466-1470.
@article{878b8ba7ae7940b8bd9b2d420e29780e,
title = "Instrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento cl{\'i}nico",
abstract = "Background: Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge in medical education. Aim: To design a clinical reasoning assessment instrument. Material and Methods: Structured interviews were carried out to six physicians with at least five years experience. The Grounded Theory method was used to determine the relevant categories of the clinical reasoning process and the modified Delphi expert judgment method to validate the categories, the definition of observable behaviors and the format of the instrument. Results: The relevant reasoning categories were the reason for consultation, medical history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reasoning reassessment capacity. Expert judgment assessed at a level of “strongly agree” and “agree” the sufficiency, clarity and pertinence of all categories, related observable behaviors and instrument format. The internal Kappa consistency yielded an index of 0.92. Conclusions: The resulting instrument was constructed with the following axes derived from the main categories and subcategories: reason for consultation, history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reassessment capacity.",
keywords = "Clinical Decision-making, Education, Medical",
author = "Ver{\'o}nica Silva and Peter McColl and Carolina P{\'e}rez and Mariana Searle and Jessica Goset",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4067/s0034-98872018001201466",
language = "Spanish",
volume = "146",
pages = "1466--1470",
journal = "Revista Medica de Chile",
issn = "0034-9887",
publisher = "Sociedad Medica de Santiago",
number = "12",

}

Instrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento clínico. / Silva, Verónica; McColl, Peter; Pérez, Carolina; Searle, Mariana; Goset, Jessica.

En: Revista Medica de Chile, Vol. 146, N.º 12, 01.01.2018, p. 1466-1470.

Resultado de la investigación: Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Instrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento clínico

AU - Silva, Verónica

AU - McColl, Peter

AU - Pérez, Carolina

AU - Searle, Mariana

AU - Goset, Jessica

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge in medical education. Aim: To design a clinical reasoning assessment instrument. Material and Methods: Structured interviews were carried out to six physicians with at least five years experience. The Grounded Theory method was used to determine the relevant categories of the clinical reasoning process and the modified Delphi expert judgment method to validate the categories, the definition of observable behaviors and the format of the instrument. Results: The relevant reasoning categories were the reason for consultation, medical history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reasoning reassessment capacity. Expert judgment assessed at a level of “strongly agree” and “agree” the sufficiency, clarity and pertinence of all categories, related observable behaviors and instrument format. The internal Kappa consistency yielded an index of 0.92. Conclusions: The resulting instrument was constructed with the following axes derived from the main categories and subcategories: reason for consultation, history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reassessment capacity.

AB - Background: Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge in medical education. Aim: To design a clinical reasoning assessment instrument. Material and Methods: Structured interviews were carried out to six physicians with at least five years experience. The Grounded Theory method was used to determine the relevant categories of the clinical reasoning process and the modified Delphi expert judgment method to validate the categories, the definition of observable behaviors and the format of the instrument. Results: The relevant reasoning categories were the reason for consultation, medical history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reasoning reassessment capacity. Expert judgment assessed at a level of “strongly agree” and “agree” the sufficiency, clarity and pertinence of all categories, related observable behaviors and instrument format. The internal Kappa consistency yielded an index of 0.92. Conclusions: The resulting instrument was constructed with the following axes derived from the main categories and subcategories: reason for consultation, history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reassessment capacity.

KW - Clinical Decision-making

KW - Education

KW - Medical

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062638647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4067/s0034-98872018001201466

DO - 10.4067/s0034-98872018001201466

M3 - Article

C2 - 30848751

AN - SCOPUS:85062638647

VL - 146

SP - 1466

EP - 1470

JO - Revista Medica de Chile

JF - Revista Medica de Chile

SN - 0034-9887

IS - 12

ER -