Variability in doctors' problem-solving as measured by open-ended written patient simulations

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The uncertain validity of written simulations could be due to the difficulty in setting criteria for optimal performance. Usually criteria are set by definition of a limited number of 'correct answers' by a panel of experts reached through an open discussion. This is an artificial situation which entails mutual influence and forces the participants to respond to the necessity to reach a consensus. In the present report we describe an attempt to set 'correct answers' by the independent performance of 15 board-certified internists on four written simulations. There was a marked variability in responses due to legitimate differences in approach, to obvious errors in interpretation of the provided data and to possible differences between the expert behaviour in a real life and in a simulated setting. We believe that the criteria for acceptable performance on written clinical simulations should be determined by independent experts, rather than by a group consensus. Students who receive after the examination a compiled list of options selected by experts in response to the same questions may obtain a more realistic insight into the complexity of clinical problem-solving.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: