Annales françaises de médecine d'urgence

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 153–158 | Cite as

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

  • T. Pelaccia
  • J. Tardif
  • E. Triby
  • C. Ammirati
  • C. Bertrand
  • V. Dory
  • B. Charlin
Article Original / Original Article

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.

Mots clés

Raisonnement clinique Prise de décisions Intuition Hypothèses diagnostiques Recherche qualitative 

How do emergency physicians reason? A synthesis of the main results from a multicentric and multidisciplinary qualitative research on decision-making in emergency medicine

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.

Keywords

Clinical reasoning Decision-making Intuition Diagnostic hypotheses Qualitative research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    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 12–22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandhu H, Carpenter C, Freeman K, et al (2006) Clinical decision making: opening the black box of cognitive reasoning. Ann Emerg Med 48:713–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 1:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 324:370–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Croskerry P, Abbass AA, Wu AW (2008) How doctors feel: affective issues in patients’ safety. Lancet 372:1205–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 324:377–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graber M (2005) Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Jt Comm Resour 31:106–13Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R (2005) Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 165:1493–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Croskerry P (2012) Perspectives on diagnostic failure and patient safety. Healthc Q Tor Ont 15(Spec No):50–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Payne VL, Crowley RS (2008) Assessing use of cognitive heuristic representativeness in clinical reasoning. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:571–5PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 49:196–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Croskerry P, Sinclair D (2001) Emergency medicine: A practice prone to error? CJEM 3:271–6Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Croskerry P (2000) The cognitive imperative: thinking about how we think. Acad Emerg Med 7:1223–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 64:575–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 10:865–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 67:747–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, et al (2016) Do emergency physicians trust their patients? Intern Emerg Med 11:603–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knoblauch H (2005) Focused ethnography. Forum Qual Soc Res 6:44Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muecke MA (1994) On the evaluation of ethnographies. In: Morse JM, Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 187–209Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Unsworth CA (2004) Clinical reasoning: how do pragmatic reasoning, worldview and client-centredness fit? Br J Occup Ther 67:10–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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, 271–88Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 38:363–96Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Unsworth CA (2001) Using a head-mounted video camera to study clinical reasoning. Am J Occup Ther 55:582–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB (2005) Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med 142:260–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79:S70–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 108:914–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guest CB, Regehr G, Tiberius RG (2001) The lifelong challenge of expertise. Med Educ 35:78–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moulton CE, Regehr G, Mylopoulos M, Mac Rae HM (2007) Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment. Acad Med 82:S109–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1999) Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Green J (2009) Qualitative methods for health research, 3rd revised edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N (2000) Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 320:114–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miles MB, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd revised edition. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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, 16Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hogarth RM (2010) Educating intuition. University Of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Durning S, Artino AR, Pangaro L, et al (2011) Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert’s voice. Med Educ 45:927–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Croskerry P (2009) Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid? Healthc Q 12:e171–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Croskerry P, Cosby KS (2009) Patient safety in emergency medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elstein AS, Schulman LS, Sprafka SA (1978) Medical problem solving: an analysis of clinical reasoning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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, 223–34Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Norman G (2005) Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ 39:418–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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, 205–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Woods NN (2007) Science is fundamental: the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Med Educ 41:1173–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Britten N (1995) Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 311:251–3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société française de médecine d'urgence and Lavoisier 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Pelaccia
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Tardif
    • 3
  • E. Triby
    • 4
  • C. Ammirati
    • 5
  • C. Bertrand
    • 6
  • V. Dory
    • 7
  • B. Charlin
    • 8
  1. 1.Service d’aide médicale urgente du Bas-Rhinhôpitaux universitaires de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Centre de formation et de recherche en pédagogie des sciences de la santé (CFRPS), Faculté de médecine de StrasbourgUniversité de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  3. 3.Département de pédagogie, Faculté d’éducationUniversité de SherbrookeQuébecCanada
  4. 4.Faculté des sciences de l’éducationuniversité de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  5. 5.Département de médecine d’urgencehôpital universitaire d’AmiensAmiensFrance
  6. 6.SAMU 94hôpital Henri-Mondor, AP-HPCréteilFrance
  7. 7.Centre for Medical EducationMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  8. 8.Centre de pédagogie appliquée aux sciences de la santé (CPASS), Faculté de médecineuniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations