Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Active, not recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05399511 |
Other study ID # |
2021-22-25 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Active, not recruiting |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
May 1, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
July 2024 |
Study information
Verified date |
May 2024 |
Source |
University of Exeter |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Decontextualised risk information is any information pertaining to diagnosis, which is
introduced into a clinical consultation, or a diagnostic thought process, without being
requested by the clinician. It can be risk scores, computerised warnings, or lab tests or
diagnostic imaging requests ordered by other clinicians. It is a concept which (to our
knowledge) has not been studied.
Clinical vignettes have been developed to simulate scenarios where decontextualised risk is
introduced into a consultation. These will be presented to primary care clinicians via video,
who will then undergo a structured interview to explore how their perception, processing and
communication of risk is challenged and changed by decontextualised risk. The findings will
be analysed used qualitative methods (Thematic Analysis).
Description:
The standard model of a medical consultation involves a patient describing their symptoms to
a clinician who then performs a physical examination. At this point a decision is made with
the patient whether further information regarding diagnosis is needed: this is often further
tests, but can be "risk scores", where various metrics including observations, age etc
combine to produce an output which helps clarify the diagnosis in question. This moment, when
a clinician decides if further tests or scores (or "risk" information) should be done is
significant. In several studies, the eventual discovery of severe disease (such as cancer)
has been found to be associated to a greater degree with the decision to do a test, then the
actual outcome of the test itself.
If a clinician has not requested this new risk information, this could present a challenge to
that professional's clinical thinking. I have called it "decontextualised risk information":
risk information that is presented out of sync with when a clinician would normally gather
such information, and out of the context of the normal diagnostic thought processes. Examples
include the processing of tests a clinician has not ordered, the routine use of scores such
as the NEWS2, and computer triggered electronic risk scores.
In primary care the chance of a serious disease being present is less than in A&E or
specialist settings. All tests are wrong some of the time and can produce false negative
results (when the test is negative but the disease is there) and false positive results (when
a test is positive, but the disease is not present). This second situation becomes more
prevalent the rarer a condition is to begin with. It means that, in primary care, the
decision not to perform a test or diagnostic score is both more common, and more likely to be
a reasonable decision.
This study will examine how "decontextualised risk information" affects clinicians'
consideration of diagnostic risk and uncertainty. Clinical vignettes have been developed to
simulate scenarios where decontextualised risk is introduced into a consultation. These will
be presented to primary care clinicians via video, who will then undergo a structured
interview to explore how their perception, processing and communication of risk is challenged
and changed by decontextualised risk. The findings will be analysed used qualitative methods
(Thematic Analysis).