Abstract

BackgroundResearch has shown paramedics form rapid intuitive impressions on first, meeting a patient and these impressions subsequently affected their clinical reasoning. We report an experiment where theory-based interventions are developed with the goal of reducing reliance on intuitive reasoning by paramedics and paramedic students in simulated patients. MethodAustralian paramedics (n = 213; 49% female) and paramedicine students (n = 83; 55% female) attending paramedic conferences completed a 2 × 2 fully between participants experiment. They saw a written clinical vignette designed to be representative of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) in which key clinical information was precise or degraded (stimulus), they then either chose the single most likely diagnosis from a list, or ranked competing diagnoses (response). Outcome variables were diagnostic rate and response time. ResultsThere were no differences in the proportion of participants choosing ACS across the four stimulus-response conditions (0.75 [0.65, 0.84] vs 0.79 [0.68, 0.87] vs, 0.78 [0.65, 0.87] vs 0.72 [0.59, 0.82], p = 0.42) ConclusionThis is the first study attempting to experimentally examine clinical reasoning in paramedics using a theory-based intervention. Neither of the interventions tested succeeded in altering measures of clinical reasoning. Similar to previous research on physicians, paramedic reasoning appears robust to manipulation.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call