Résumé
Objectif
Nous en savons très peu sur la façon dont les médecins urgentistes raisonnent afin de prendre des décisions diagnostiques et thérapeutiques. Les erreurs de raisonnement sont pourtant à l’origine de la majorité des erreurs diagnostiques survenant dans le cadre de la pratique clinique. Cet article présente à l’attention des praticiens et des enseignants de médecine d’urgence les principaux résultats d’une vaste étude qui a réuni entre 2010 et 2015 une équipe internationale de chercheurs issus de plusieurs disciplines, avec pour objectif de modéliser l’expertise en médecine d’urgence.
Matériel et méthodes
Nous avons mené une recherche observationnelle prospective multicentrique basée sur une approche qualitative. Des entretiens ont été réalisés avec des médecins urgentistes experts jusqu’à saturation des données. Ils concernaient la prise en charge récente d’une situation d’urgence. Ils étaient sous-tendus par l’enregistrement vidéo de la situation selon le propre point de vue des médecins.
Résultats
Les médecins urgentistes interviewés utilisent essentiellement leur intuition, qui se forge très rapidement, sur la base de deux à quatre informations cliniques et contextuelles. Ils trouvent souvent le bon diagnostic avant même d’avoir rencontré le patient, mais attendent systématiquement les résultats des examens complémentaires pour en être certains. Ils sont loin d’être « objectifs » dans la façon dont ils traitent les données de leur environnement et craignent toujours le pire.
Conclusion
La modélisation de l’expertise en médecine d’urgence est susceptible d’aider les praticiens et les enseignants à mieux comprendre l’origine des erreurs de prise de décision dans le domaine de l’urgence.
Abstract
Objectives
Little is known about how emergency physicians reason in order to make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Yet, reasoning errors are the main cause of diagnostic errors in the context of the clinical practice. This article brings to the attention of emergency physicians and emergency medicine teachers the main results of a vast study carried out from 2010 to 2015 within a multidisciplinary team that brought together researchers from several countries. The project aimed at modeling expertise in emergency medicine.
Methods
We carried out a multicenter prospective observational study based on a qualitative approach. We conducted interviews with expert emergency physicians until data saturation. The interviews focused on the recent management of an emergency situation. They were underpinned by the video recording of the situation according to the physicians’ own point of view perspective.
Results
The interviewed emergency physicians mainly used their intuition, forged very early on the basis of two to four clinical and contextual data. They often generate the correct diagnostic even before meeting the patient, but systematically wait for the results of the complementary examinations to be certain. They are far from being “objective” when they deal with data from their environment and always worry about the worst.
Conclusion
The modeling of expertise in emergency medicine is likely to help practitioners and teachers to better understand the causes of decision-making errors in the field of emergency medicine.
Références
Campbell S (2008) Patient safety and continuous quality improvement–A user’s guide. In: Croskerry P, Cosby KS, Schenkel SM, et al, Patient Safety in Emergency Medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphie 12–22
Sandhu H, Carpenter C, Freeman K, et al (2006) Clinical decision making: opening the black box of cognitive reasoning. Ann Emerg Med 48:713–9
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, et al (2011) Comment les médecins raisonnent-ils pour poser des diagnostics et prendre des décisions thérapeutiques ? Les enjeux en médecine d’urgence. Ann Fr Médecine Urgence 1:77–84
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324:370–6
Croskerry P, Abbass AA, Wu AW (2008) How doctors feel: affective issues in patients’ safety. Lancet 372:1205–6
Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al (1991) The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 324:377–84
Graber M (2005) Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Jt Comm Resour 31:106–13
Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R (2005) Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 165:1493–9
Croskerry P (2012) Perspectives on diagnostic failure and patient safety. Healthc Q Tor Ont 15(Spec No):50–6
Payne VL, Crowley RS (2008) Assessing use of cognitive heuristic representativeness in clinical reasoning. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:571–5
Kachalia A, Gandhi TK, Puopolo AL, et al (2007) Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers. Ann Emerg Med 49:196–205
Croskerry P, Sinclair D (2001) Emergency medicine: A practice prone to error? CJEM 3:271–6
Croskerry P (2000) The cognitive imperative: thinking about how we think. Acad Emerg Med 7:1223–31
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, et al (2014) How and when do expert emergency physicians generate and evaluate diagnostic hypotheses? A qualitative study using head-mounted video cued-recall interviews. Ann Emerg Med 64:575–85
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, et al (2015) Insights into emergency physicians’ minds in the seconds before and into a patient encounter. Intern Emerg Med 10:865–73
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, et al (2015) From context comes expertise: how do expert emergency physicians use their knowwho to make decisions? Ann Emerg Med 67:747–51
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, et al (2016) Do emergency physicians trust their patients? Intern Emerg Med 11:603–8
Knoblauch H (2005) Focused ethnography. Forum Qual Soc Res 6:44
Muecke MA (1994) On the evaluation of ethnographies. In: Morse JM, Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 187–209
Unsworth CA (2004) Clinical reasoning: how do pragmatic reasoning, worldview and client-centredness fit? Br J Occup Ther 67:10–9
Omodei MM, Mc Lennan J, Wearing AJ (2005) How expertise is applied in real-world dynamic environments: head-mounted video and cued recall as a methodology for studying routines of decision-making. In: Betsch T, Haberstroh S, The routines of decision-making. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 271–88
Rix G, Biache MJ (2004) Enregistrement en perspective subjective située et entretien en re-situ subjectif: une méthodologie de la constitution de l’expérience. Intellectica 38:363–96
Unsworth CA (2001) Using a head-mounted video camera to study clinical reasoning. Am J Occup Ther 55:582–8
Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB (2005) Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med 142:260–73
Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79:S70–81
Friedman Z, Siddiqui N, Katznelson R, et al (2008) Experience is not enough: repeated breaches in epidural anesthesia aseptic technique by novice operators despite improved skill. Anesthesiology 108:914–20
Guest CB, Regehr G, Tiberius RG (2001) The lifelong challenge of expertise. Med Educ 35:78–81
Moulton CE, Regehr G, Mylopoulos M, Mac Rae HM (2007) Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment. Acad Med 82:S109–16
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1999) Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway, NJ
Green J (2009) Qualitative methods for health research, 3rd revised edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, Los Angeles
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N (2000) Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 320:114–6
Miles MB, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd revised edition. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, Charlin B (2011) An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: the dual-process theory. Med Educ Online, 16
Hogarth RM (2010) Educating intuition. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago
Durning S, Artino AR, Pangaro L, et al (2011) Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert’s voice. Med Educ 45:927–38
Croskerry P (2009) Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid? Healthc Q 12:e171–6
Croskerry P, Cosby KS (2009) Patient safety in emergency medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
Elstein AS, Schulman LS, Sprafka SA (1978) Medical problem solving: an analysis of clinical reasoning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Schwartz A, Elstein AS (2008) Clinical reasoning in medicine. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, et al, Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 223–34
Norman G (2005) Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ 39:418–27
Gruppen LD, Frohna AZ (2002) Clinical reasoning. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CP, Newble DI, International handbook of research in medical education. Kluwer Academic, Boston, 205–30
Woods NN (2007) Science is fundamental: the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Med Educ 41:1173–7
Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA
Britten N (1995) Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 311:251–3
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Pelaccia, T., Tardif, J., Triby, E. et al. Comment les médecins urgentistes raisonnent-ils ? Synthèse des principaux résultats d’une recherche qualitative multicentrique et multidisciplinaire sur la prise de décision en médecine d’urgence. Ann. Fr. Med. Urgence 7, 153–158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-017-0729-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-017-0729-1